Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I want to toss out an example for discussion. For those of you who might be familiar with Magic: The Gathering...

Let's say I play a 4/4 creature with Flying. I can do a lot with that card, given the proper support cards. I could give it +X/+0, +X/-X, -X/+X, ot +X/+X modifiers increasing one or both of its basic statistics, or even making one statistic lower while raising the other in compensation. I could give it another keyword ability, or perhaps several keyword abilities. I can target it to make it do things out of its turn, etc.

So why can't we have a magic system in 40K that does the same thing?

Why couldn't I have a whole list of spells available to chose from?

Take a squad of Chaos Raptors: S4 T4 base. 3+ Save. LD 8 with a Champion.

So why couldn't my Sorcerer have the ability to cast a spell that gives my raptors +2 strength at the cost of lowering their toughness by 2? Or a buff that lets them fight first no matter what other rules might be applied that turn. How about the ability to sacrifice an attack from their profile to gain +1 save for this turn?

As the game currently stands, we can get +1 to hit and rerolls. That's it. Wouldn't something like this make a lot of the units that are seen as unenviable even in friendly games much more tempting to take?

Different Factions have different options for their Psyker Powers. For example, Orkz can get +1 Attack to a mob, +1S and +1A to a character, or jump units around. Pretty sure Nids have a Power to give a unit an Invuln Save (maybe not). Tau can give their units a FnP (not really a Psyker Power, but close enough). Does every army have every option? Of course not. The game would be no fun if every Army played the exact same way. If you want some of these buff options, consider playing a different Faction. Generally speaking, the Powers each Faction has are going to compliment their playstyle.

 flandarz wrote:
Different Factions have different options for their Psyker Powers. For example, Orkz can get +1 Attack to a mob, +1S and +1A to a character, or jump units around. Pretty sure Nids have a Power to give a unit an Invuln Save (maybe not). Tau can give their units a FnP (not really a Psyker Power, but close enough). Does every army have every option? Of course not. The game would be no fun if every Army played the exact same way. If you want some of these buff options, consider playing a different Faction. Generally speaking, the Powers each Faction has are going to compliment their playstyle.

This isn''t about me and what I like, this is about fixing units that are deemed unusable by opening an entirely new way to buff and debuff units. Giving a large pool of spells that are available to all won't make the game less fun. It will serve to enhance builds and allow for more than just knights to run amok.

But why wouldn’t you just buff the best units, instead of mediocre ones?

I dunno, pal. We might wanna see how the FAQ affects Knight lists before we start proposing sweeping changes to a system simply to deal with them. But, honestly? I don't think this is necessary. If certain units aren't "viable" it's much more effective to adjust their point costs than to implement changes that can improve them AND the already good units. Or to improve those units' datasheets with more weapon options or new abilities. This idea seems like it would snowball out of hand very quickly. Like, giving a Gretchin +2S and -2T isn't a huge deal (though with 0T I think it might be dead). Giving that same buff to Ghaz would be a huge change, taking him from an effective 12S with his Klaw to 16S.

 flandarz wrote:
I dunno, pal. We might wanna see how the FAQ affects Knight lists before we start proposing sweeping changes to a system simply to deal with them. But, honestly? I don't think this is necessary. If certain units aren't "viable" it's much more effective to adjust their point costs than to implement changes that can improve them AND the already good units. Or to improve those units' datasheets with more weapon options or new abilities. This idea seems like it would snowball out of hand very quickly. Like, giving a Gretchin +2S and -2T isn't a huge deal (though with 0T I think it might be dead). Giving that same buff to Ghaz would be a huge change, taking him from an effective 12S with his Klaw to 16S.

Or if you can do the reverse...

I'd happily run a S6 Knight if it meant it was also T10.

You ain't kidding. Basically, this isn't gonna pan out well, Tog. As I said, it'd be better to buff the bad units specifically than to throw out for everyone.

A lot of these issues can be mitigated.

Spells can be set up to target specific units, only infantry or non-vehicle for example.

Warp charges could be adjusted to make them harder to pull off, and combined with the proper point adjustments, would add a great dimension to the game.

 flandarz wrote:
You ain't kidding. Basically, this isn't gonna pan out well, Tog. As I said, it'd be better to buff the bad units specifically than to throw out for everyone.

But that requires a new codex, and GW may not be willing to put out a new codex. Specially if they don't have any new models for the faction. I doubt the world would break if hammer hand suddenly was even +4 strenght.

In a game that already requires a minimum of two books to play, do we really need another addition to the rules though? Again, it's easier to "buff" the weaker units individually than to add a new dimension to gameplay. Especially considering how hard a time GW seems to have with balancing what it already has. If they implemented this, that's a LOT more balancing to do. It would need to be balanced to not make OP units even better, it would need to be balanced against each Faction to ensure they would all be able to benefit from it (Tau aren't gonna have a whole lot of use for +2S/-2T, for example), and they would need to be balanced both against each other AND against the existing Powers and Stratagems. Many Psyker Units can cast multiple Powers at once, and many Factions have multiple Psyker Units. Imagine dropping +2/-2 on Ghaz, after he gets buffed by Fists of Gork. Now you got 8 Attacks on a Charge, hitting on 2s with Exploding 6s, at an effective S20 with -3AP and 3 Damage a pop. Then, when your opponent Fights Back and (hopefully) takes down the now T4 Ghaz, you use Orkz are Neva Beaten to go all that all over again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A new Codex? I'm under the impression that GW uses CA to tweak units all the time. Generally via Point Adjustments, but that's still a "buff". If Ork Boyz were to drop to 2ppm, even if the datasheet didn't change at all, they'd go from "pretty good" to "OP".

GW does not do balance at all. And if they don't care about it, why should I care. Psychic powers is one of the few things my army could technicaly be good at. Why shouldn't I want GW to add more stuff to cast per turn, when right now I have 2 spells and baby smite to cast? My army is bad, with more spells it could only get better and more fun to play. I don't really care if it coul make other factions units better too, the situation could not be worse then it is right now.

If that's how you feel, then I ain't gonna judge ya. You're welcome to your opinion, same as me. Mine is: "this is unnecessary, unwieldy, and potentially game-breaking". And that's all I can say on the matter. If you feel differently, we can discuss that. If your argument is "but I think this is cool" then there's nothing really left to discuss here.

So you're talking about a couple of concepts here:

1.) A "toolbox" magic system in which you can sort of build a spell effect out of various building blocks.

2.) Giving all armies access to the same psychic abilities (or the same toolbox).

1 is problematic because it's really hard to balance something with that much flexibility. Giving some marines or an already high strength thing a couple points of strength is good but not game breaking. But if you're turning super cheap guardsmen or gretchin into super cheap glass cannons, you're upping the killing power of a cheap model considerably. And the fact that making something like an imperial knight or dreadnaught even stronger is less likely to be impactful than making cheap infantry stronger means that you have to price (or set a warp charge) for that ability such that it's either way too costly for the less efficient unit that might benefit from it or way too cheap for the efficient unit that might benefit form it.

Basically, too many variables to be able to balance it without a whole system overhaul.

2 is undesirable ( to my mind) because having specific abilities available to a faction is a way of expressing their story and "flavor" in game terms. Eldar have powers that let them subtly guide fate but don't directly beef them up physically. Slaaneshi psykers have powers tied to mind control. Tzeentch has fire magic. Librarians can bolster the might of already hardy marines and shut down daemonic defenses.

If you give everyone the same list of psychic abilities, then those abilities become generic rather than expressive. Also, you're giving yourself that much less control over exactly how good the psychich powers actually are. You couldn't give warlocks a baby smite, for instance.

 Togusa wrote:
...Wouldn't something like this make a lot of the units that are seen as unenviable even in friendly games much more tempting to take?

...And make the already-powerful units so much more powerful that the unusable units remain unusable?

Wyldhunt wrote:
So you're talking about a couple of concepts here:

1.) A "toolbox" magic system in which you can sort of build a spell effect out of various building blocks.

2.) Giving all armies access to the same psychic abilities (or the same toolbox).

1 is problematic because it's really hard to balance something with that much flexibility. Giving some marines or an already high strength thing a couple points of strength is good but not game breaking. But if you're turning super cheap guardsmen or gretchin into super cheap glass cannons, you're upping the killing power of a cheap model considerably. And the fact that making something like an imperial knight or dreadnaught even stronger is less likely to be impactful than making cheap infantry stronger means that you have to price (or set a warp charge) for that ability such that it's either way too costly for the less efficient unit that might benefit from it or way too cheap for the efficient unit that might benefit form it.

Basically, too many variables to be able to balance it without a whole system overhaul.

2 is undesirable ( to my mind) because having specific abilities available to a faction is a way of expressing their story and "flavor" in game terms. Eldar have powers that let them subtly guide fate but don't directly beef them up physically. Slaaneshi psykers have powers tied to mind control. Tzeentch has fire magic. Librarians can bolster the might of already hardy marines and shut down daemonic defenses.

If you give everyone the same list of psychic abilities, then those abilities become generic rather than expressive. Also, you're giving yourself that much less control over exactly how good the psychich powers actually are. You couldn't give warlocks a baby smite, for instance.

These would be in ADDITION to what the armies get as Unique spells. So #2 wouldn't be a problem.

If wizards of the coast can balance 5 spell casting classes out of the bunch, GW can balance some extra spells to liven up the magic in this game.

 Togusa wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
So you're talking about a couple of concepts here:

1.) A "toolbox" magic system in which you can sort of build a spell effect out of various building blocks.

2.) Giving all armies access to the same psychic abilities (or the same toolbox).

1 is problematic because it's really hard to balance something with that much flexibility. Giving some marines or an already high strength thing a couple points of strength is good but not game breaking. But if you're turning super cheap guardsmen or gretchin into super cheap glass cannons, you're upping the killing power of a cheap model considerably. And the fact that making something like an imperial knight or dreadnaught even stronger is less likely to be impactful than making cheap infantry stronger means that you have to price (or set a warp charge) for that ability such that it's either way too costly for the less efficient unit that might benefit from it or way too cheap for the efficient unit that might benefit form it.

Basically, too many variables to be able to balance it without a whole system overhaul.

2 is undesirable ( to my mind) because having specific abilities available to a faction is a way of expressing their story and "flavor" in game terms. Eldar have powers that let them subtly guide fate but don't directly beef them up physically. Slaaneshi psykers have powers tied to mind control. Tzeentch has fire magic. Librarians can bolster the might of already hardy marines and shut down daemonic defenses.

If you give everyone the same list of psychic abilities, then those abilities become generic rather than expressive. Also, you're giving yourself that much less control over exactly how good the psychich powers actually are. You couldn't give warlocks a baby smite, for instance.

These would be in ADDITION to what the armies get as Unique spells. So #2 wouldn't be a problem.

If wizards of the coast can balance 5 spell casting classes out of the bunch, GW can balance some extra spells to liven up the magic in this game.

I'm not sure I understand your proposal then. You listed a handful of different spell effects in the opening post and went into the most detail about the one that seemed to use "toolbox" mechanics. Are you proposing each of those spells mentioned in your opening post as a list of universal spells that people know on top of their normal selection, adding a "toolbox" style of casting, or...?

Also, MtG kind of doesn't balance all spells/cards against one another. There are definitely more and less competitive cards and deck builds.