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.

The various factions have different "chapter/fleet/army bonuses, strats, relics, and war lord traits. All with varying degrees of efectiveness.

To me the biggest imbalances seem to be which team's "free" stuff is better.
If you had to pay points for all these extras, i think you could gain a better equilibrium of forces.

IH chapter bonus is too good, give it a price hike. as an example.

These add on extra bonuses are not equal and should cost points. Giving your entire force a buff to charge or ability to shoot after leaving combat should not be free.

I believe if we could appropriately point all these powers and relics and strats the current issues would not be issues.
Forces would be easier to balance with point tweaking if a strat combo or chapter bonus is too good, raise the cost.


You could play all the strats you want in a game, if you pay for them.
the fact all the goodies cost the same is the reason we see inequality. point the special rules, problem solved.

The problem with this is that GW decided to cost the stuff that is named the same, the same, no matter what extra rules they have. So an assault centurion who is bunkers in RG is a bad options for most other chapters. If we GW were to price everything to balance it vs the good stuff in good armies, all marines would be extremly overcosted.

I am not talking the cost of the unit. i am talking about the extra add on rules. The RG rules make the units good pay for those rules.

In theory, you're correct.

In practise, GW are (and have always been) utterly abysmal at understanding and balancing their own game. Hence, even if they did add point costs to Chapter Tactics and the like, i have absolutely no faith in them to make said costs remotely balanced or reflective of power.

I also have no faith in them to not screw up the costing system itself. e.g. by making each Chapter Tactic +Xpts more per model. So that you would, for example, pay 1pt extra per guardsman and 1pt extra per Baneblade.

GW knows exactly what they are doing...selling models & books. The only thing they want to balance is their checkbook.

If you play this game long enough you will see the ebb of flow of what faction is on top only to be nerfed later. Play the game for the hobby/social aspect or be prepared to drop a lot of money switching armies to be 'competitive' at all times.

Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

Karol wrote:
The problem with this is that GW decided to cost the stuff that is named the same, the same, no matter what extra rules they have. So an assault centurion who is bunkers in RG is a bad options for most other chapters. If we GW were to price everything to balance it vs the good stuff in good armies, all marines would be extremly overcosted.

so much this.. i think costing weapons upgrades per unit makes so much more sense. a power fist on a space marine captain woudl be much better than a sarg with a power fist.

a heavy bolter is worth less in a heavy weapons team than it is on a leman russ.

a fusion gun in the hands of a tau commander is worth more on a cond star than within a crisis team. etc.

I don't know what you're talking about.

(Equips his Farseer with his sweet ass free 2-damage Shuriken Pistol)

 Elbows wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about.

(Equips his Farseer with his sweet ass free 2-damage Shuriken Pistol)

Relic 2-damage shuriken pistol: Equipped.

Close combat exarch trait: on all my dark reaper exarchs.

Reroll charge rolls craftworld trait: Engaged.

I am ejected from the ITC by 70% winrate iron hands.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

Yes the problem is that it's FREE and ALWAYS ON. Other armies are good until you run out of cp then your done. Faith and Fury gave some good, fluffy rules to the legions but once you run out of cp you go back to being inferior marines with spikes on. The loyalists get to play with their sometimes fluffy, sometimes not fluffy rules all the time. For FREE. Special rules and abilities should cost points.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

Yeah I missed a few for both armies but in general you know what I mean. In general those other free rules are things that all marines get - Ironhands specifically get these special rules. The Ironhands player is just getting way more free rules. It's not rocket science. More free rules is better.
The nids get the synapse rule and sometimes shadow in the warp which is pretty great overall compared to +1 attack first round and random -1 AP mechanics. Obviously the doctrines are better but ignore morale is a powerful rule. IMO it's hard for me to believe the nids new PA rules did not include some more bonus rules to go along with the synapse rule.

This is why I wish they went for the apporach to just make marine units cost less rather than a billion free rules.

Remove 2.0 marines rules
Make a tac cost 10
Make an intercessor cost 15
Reduce most units 15-20% in cost
and give some stratagems

Wow marines are balanced.

They've done this a bit. Thunder hammers on characters cost a lot more than on normal Infantry. Same with Storm Shields.

Just need to do that more!

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Karol wrote:
The problem with this is that GW decided to cost the stuff that is named the same, the same, no matter what extra rules they have. So an assault centurion who is bunkers in RG is a bad options for most other chapters. If we GW were to price everything to balance it vs the good stuff in good armies, all marines would be extremly overcosted.

so much this.. i think costing weapons upgrades per unit makes so much more sense. a power fist on a space marine captain woudl be much better than a sarg with a power fist.

a heavy bolter is worth less in a heavy weapons team than it is on a leman russ.

a fusion gun in the hands of a tau commander is worth more on a cond star than within a crisis team. etc.

You cannot fairly balance the set costs of two models and two weapons such that each combination is of equal value per point if the value of each weapon is different on each model.

The most obvious case is the Crisis Suit vs the Commander. How do you point the Plasma Rifle? If you point it what it's worth on the Crisis Suit, it's OP on the Commander. If you point it what it's worth on the Commander, it's trash on the Crisis Suit.

The common retort is to point the Plasma Rifle such that the Crisis Suit is balanced, then increase the Commander's points such that the Plasma Rifle is fine. But if the Flamer is pointed such that it's fair on the Crisis Suit, the Commander now overpays for Flamer.

You can keep passing around where you put the points to balance it, but with two models and two weapons, there is no fair solution to pointing where both models pay the same for the same weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately you are correct but you are acknowledging something that GW refuses to do. The bonuses are not equal. WE ALL KNOW THIS. There is no way to be fair if these bonuses are not equal.

It's pretty obvious that they aren't even trying to be equal when you have the exact same rule for something like...

Hive fleet Leviathan gets a 6+FNP if within 6" of a synapse creature.

Iron-hands get 6+ FNP at all times and over-watch on 5+ and ignore penalties and reroll 1's with heavies and vehcials take half damage when accounting for degrading profiles.

Like....isn't it obvious that one army is getting too much free crap?

You forgot reroll morale and rapid fire weapons out to full range and +1 attack if charged or charging and -1AP on all heavy weapons.

Just sayin'. Keep the list straight.

Yeah I missed a few for both armies but in general you know what I mean. In general those other free rules are things that all marines get - Ironhands specifically get these special rules. The Ironhands player is just getting way more free rules. It's not rocket science. More free rules is better.
The nids get the synapse rule and sometimes shadow in the warp which is pretty great overall compared to +1 attack first round and random -1 AP mechanics. Obviously the doctrines are better but ignore morale is a powerful rule. IMO it's hard for me to believe the nids new PA rules did not include some more bonus rules to go along with the synapse rule.

This is why I wish they went for the apporach to just make marine units cost less rather than a billion free rules.

Remove 2.0 marines rules
Make a tac cost 10
Make an intercessor cost 15
Reduce most units 15-20% in cost
and give some stratagems

Wow marines are balanced.

BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT GOD.

 ImperialArmy wrote:

BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT GOD.

I love that phrase

The effectiveness of a model is part of the price of the model.
The commander costs more because of his higher stats.
The weapons cost is the weapons cost. your trying to balance backwards.

Doesn't matter which way you cost them. Something is still uneven.

Contrived example/further explaination:

If GW simply costed the special abilities and relics things would be closer to equality.
I think everyone who plays wants a fair chance to win.

Its obvious the freebies are throwing everything out of wack.

I really wish they'd point them. I hate the bloat more than the freebes, but they're both problems.

I think GW wants the simplicity, but over complicates a lot of there game why still sticking to there plan of simple and easy.

I do not really see 8th as some simple game, it’s really complicated in some really dumb and simple ways. And I really think that is the issue, they want like 5 different designs for the game to work, and keep swapping them around.

Free should always come with a cost somewhere, and I think they just need to move to a points list per chapter(other faction) at this point, if they want to keep going down this path. Way more bloat, But it’s probably not much worth to them with the time if the fans won’t hold them to keeping the game balanced :$

Faction traits should have a cost if not points than a drawback. I hate to constantly bring up hh but the legion traits in it all come with drawbacks to counter their advantages. I don't understand why gw can implement such rules in one of their games but not another.

IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

as for "get rid of doctrines and just reduce prices" as proposed by xenos, feth that. Space Marine codex 2.0 was right about one thing, Marines needed to feel more elite, not get cheaper.so doctrines etc where a smart idea. the problem is laying super doctrines on top of that. more specificly armies whose super doctrine removes and element of choice and stragety to the use of doctrines. the most abused super doctrines are the ones that are parked in devestator and have no compelling reason to consider switching.

IMHO the dark angels super doctrine is one of the better designed in that it gives dark angels a nifty edge, but there's no reason to stay in it the entire game. likewise raven guard's super doctrine you may not wanna always be in. there are advantages to being in devestator or assault for them that might outweigh the advantages of their super doctrine, depending on situation.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Apple fox wrote:
I think GW wants the simplicity, but over complicates a lot of there game why still sticking to there plan of simple and easy.

I do not really see 8th as some simple game, it’s really complicated in some really dumb and simple ways. And I really think that is the issue, they want like 5 different designs for the game to work, and keep swapping them around.

I think the real issue is that, whilst the core rules for 8th edition are relatively simple, they also lack any actual depth.

There are absolutely no interesting mechanics for units to build on. It's just a game of spreadsheets.

Hence, the only way GW can even give the illusion of depth is by shoving more and more special rules on new models.

Karol wrote:
The problem with this is that GW decided to cost the stuff that is named the same, the same, no matter what extra rules they have. So an assault centurion who is bunkers in RG is a bad options for most other chapters. If we GW were to price everything to balance it vs the good stuff in good armies, all marines would be extremly overcosted.

In some ways.... that's okay. In a lot of ways that's kind of the point of theme bonus rules.

When a game runs out of design space, all you can really do is make niche units no one really NEEDS but someone might think is cool and want to run. No one needs Assault Centurions. No one ever did. Some people think they're cool and want to use them. If they want to run them so much that they want to build an army around them; RG exists to give them the rules to make them competitive. Elsewhere they're not useless; but certainly niche. They of course, could make them a RG ONLY unit, but somebody out there would rather play a small squad of them that's not great in their White Scars than not at all.... and that's okay.

Trying to balance a game by micromanaging the points to get everything exactly right never works. Things are simply too interconnected and dependent on the relative value of other aspects for points to ever really make the difference. It's okay if Thunderhammers are only efficient on captains. Most games would only make them available TO captains. The flip side of that is accepting that if you want Thunder Hammers to be an option for Sergeants.... they just might be 100% equal and again... that's okay.

 LunarSol wrote:

Karol wrote:
The problem with this is that GW decided to cost the stuff that is named the same, the same, no matter what extra rules they have. So an assault centurion who is bunkers in RG is a bad options for most other chapters. If we GW were to price everything to balance it vs the good stuff in good armies, all marines would be extremly overcosted.

In some ways.... that's okay. In a lot of ways that's kind of the point of theme bonus rules.

When a game runs out of design space, all you can really do is make niche units no one really NEEDS but someone might think is cool and want to run. No one needs Assault Centurions. No one ever did. Some people think they're cool and want to use them. If they want to run them so much that they want to build an army around them; RG exists to give them the rules to make them competitive. Elsewhere they're not useless; but certainly niche. They of course, could make them a RG ONLY unit, but somebody out there would rather play a small squad of them that's not great in their White Scars than not at all.... and that's okay.

Trying to balance a game by micromanaging the points to get everything exactly right never works. Things are simply too interconnected and dependent on the relative value of other aspects for points to ever really make the difference. It's okay if Thunderhammers are only efficient on captains. Most games would only make them available TO captains. The flip side of that is accepting that if you want Thunder Hammers to be an option for Sergeants.... they just might be 100% equal and again... that's okay.

Yes but gw has a tendency to give units the same cost in different armies, with different codexes, with said units having different rules. See hellforged vs relic units.

BrianDavion wrote:
IF GW required us to pay for CT it'd not make much differance. We'd still have one or two CTs deemed the best, there'd just be additional factors in figuring out what's best.

Iron Hands meanwhile is so good you'd never want to ditch the doctrine

Thats the point though if Chapter tactics had points and cost appropriate to the effects they give it would make picking a CT meaning full beyond "whats best"

The fact all armies dont have all the tools that some do is why the game is out of whack now.

If The Chapter tactics and doctrines cost points, other armies would be able to compete against them more fairly.


Additionally: If strats cost points instead of force org slots it would even the playing field nicely. Soup wouldn't be required to get the bonus from the loyal 32 to fuel elite armies.

OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

What their probably shouldn't be is "global" traits. Alaitoc being the obvious example, but generally speaking the traits should be targeted to make a specific aspect of an army strong enough to be a competitive focus. Iron Hands can be the Dreadnought chapter while White Scars is where you get competitive bikes. This helps create design space for a lot of otherwise niche units and helps define each trait's unique army style.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

As is, outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists being terrible, the Marine traits are pretty balanced. Now would I remove vehicle chart part of the Iron Hand one so they just get two bonuses? Well yeah.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

As is, outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists being terrible, the Marine traits are pretty balanced. Now would I remove vehicle chart part of the Iron Hand one so they just get two bonuses? Well yeah.

You are a bit off about the power of the tactics. CF for example still have one of the best tactics - it is just there is a better version called IF - literally no reason unless you have some attachment to pedro to take Crimson fists because they even have the same relics and stratagems right? Exploding 6's on bolt weapons is still incredible compared to say...Ultramarines which can fall back and shoot at -1...which is super conditional and -1 LD might as well not even exist. BT is also pretty bad for an entire army because it literally does nothing for 80% of the units in the codex - 5+ FNP to mortals - is okay but also super conditional. Salamanders is also not that bad. The basically have MOA which almost all the competitive lists use and instead of always counts in cover they have ignore ap-1 (which is super conditional). It's still better than garbage Ultras and BT tactics.

IF and IH tactics are literally issane. Plus so is successor traits. Like I explained...Successor traits can be salamanders plus 1 and take your pick of the best super doctrines. Clearly imbalanced from inception. Never should have made it this far.

I agree with the OP.
Also some comments..
Free stuff sells books that reveal the free stuff that you can't get otherwise.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we could just remove the Super Doctrines.

This isnt a strict marine problem. Every army has some inferior and superior army traits. This should not be the case. Every army trait should be of similar strength. Plus especially across armies with the exact same trait like Levi vs Ironhands....this cases should be thrown out immediately.

What their probably shouldn't be is "global" traits. Alaitoc being the obvious example, but generally speaking the traits should be targeted to make a specific aspect of an army strong enough to be a competitive focus. Iron Hands can be the Dreadnought chapter while White Scars is where you get competitive bikes. This helps create design space for a lot of otherwise niche units and helps define each trait's unique army style.

IDK about that - it's pretty lame having 1 chapter but the units I pay the same price for are worse than other chapters. Traits should be useful for all or most of your models. IE Ironhands dreads have 6+ fnp. White scars can advance and charge. BT get a close combat bonus and inspire their infantry somehow when they complete charges. IF get additional bonus to cover save if in cover. Ultras can shoot on the move and count as stationary. Salamanders get bonus to flame and melta weapons. (just realistic as all of these traits seem somewhat balanced and fit the fluff).

There was no need for these insane traits IH and IF got. That is just pure ignorance of what balance is.

Apart from that and certain super doctrines and a few WLT (looking at you master of ambush). I feel like most of the other changes were good. You could pretty much just removed super doctrines.

Personally I feel like the Dev Doctrine should be a +1 to hit with heavy weapons (or ignore move penalties for heavies). Tactical and assault are fine. As is shock assault (it should only affect marine infantry though - not their dreads). Succesor traits are fine except for a few obvious ones like (MOA) which is basically the salamanders chapter tactic where you can also pick another really good trait...obviously too much. Maybe limit to just 1 trait for the successors would have been fine.