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.

Since 8th introduced the idea of subfactions gaining traits/relics/strategems there have been the haves and have nots of this new avenue of faction power without associated cost.

Since Pandora's Box is opened I don't see them going back and I also don't see them adding the granularity of pricing each subfactions units separately.

Despite the gulf in effectiveness between Black Templars and Iron Hands Executioners not accounted for in the points currently.

What I propose to enhance both internal and external balance:

A blanket points cost for each subfaction bracketed by game size. Ie. Iron Hands costs 50/100/150/200 at every 500 point game size
Word Bearers cost 10/20/30/40 at every 500 point game size.

Each CA review where things stand and tweak as you go.

That would be a tacit admission that IH et al. are OP and is a pretty bad way to balance them, especially considering that it is very possible to make a non-OP IH army (assault marines and apothecaries).

You could have something like AOS's detachments of renown or whatever they are, but I have never actually seen those get used and specialist detachments are the same thing but paid for in CP and not points.

I disagree that it would be an acknowledgement that they are OP. Just very strong (adding a cost makes it a consideration)

Currently there are plenty of interesting subfaction abilities that might as well not exist in many cases as they are just too far behind the power options or too specialized.

If the decision also included having more points to work with when selecting the weaker or hyper specialized maybe they'd start seeing more table time

Or they could just not make Iron Hands a three parter Chapter Tactic and give Word Bearers rules that they should not be embarrassed about.

Those are pretty easy solutions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or they could just not make Iron Hands a three parter Chapter Tactic and give Word Bearers rules that they should not be embarrassed about.

Those are pretty easy solutions.

They've had 4 publications in 8th to do that for the XVII and chose not to (not counting the CAs)

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with reverting to an army having one set of rules and your paint/unit preference return to just that, a preference.

But they've opened the bloat gates so some effort to differentiate the power it unlocks would be nice.

Leaving it as is because you can take a crap list that gains nothing from the free abilities is not great game design. (Though between free three part trait and Doctrines that book would still give more than most even assembled intentionally poorly)

 Eldarain wrote:
Currently there are plenty of interesting subfaction abilities that might as well not exist in many cases as they are just too far behind the power options or too specialized.

If the decision also included having more points to work with when selecting the weaker or hyper specialized maybe they'd start seeing more table time

IH aren't any more OP than any other SM chapter anymore, that's not the point.

My point is that points should not be used to balance chapter tactics and the like. If you really want super powerful abilities in chapter tactics, balance that out with a detriment. It's what Graia does, for example, they get a better version of a FNP (one that ignores all wounds from an attack and not just 1) but can't fall back if their characters are dead. You could give a kabal +1 to wound for all their attacks, but balance that out with -1 to all their saving throws or something.

There are other ways to included points in faction balancing, namely adding regiments of renown. For example; take X HQ and Y troops and call yourself the krieg 88th divison 123rd company to get +1 to saving throws against blast weapons for a 50/100/150/200 point hike.

That's fair. Marines in general are the worst example but almost all books have a clear hierarchy with some truly abysmal ones in the cellar.

I'd be open to the pros/cons approach but they have a history when trying that of ending up with some eyerollingly lame cons.

AoS battalion system is a good call out. Definitely some ideas that could be lifted there.

 Eldarain wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or they could just not make Iron Hands a three parter Chapter Tactic and give Word Bearers rules that they should not be embarrassed about.

Those are pretty easy solutions.

They've had 4 publications in 8th to do that for the XVII and chose not to (not counting the CAs)

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with reverting to an army having one set of rules and your paint/unit preference return to just that, a preference.

But they've opened the bloat gates so some effort to differentiate the power it unlocks would be nice.

Leaving it as is because you can take a crap list that gains nothing from the free abilities is not great game design. (Though between free three part trait and Doctrines that book would still give more than most even assembled intentionally poorly)

As proven by 6th onwards to 8th though, units are what make an army broken overall compared to bonuses from Chapter Tactic equivalents. It's very rare the army gets something stupid over the top that it needs to be looked at, like with the Death Guard bonuses from the 7th Edition Legion Supplement, or Iron Hands getting a 3 parter for 8th. One of the better examples is how, even with a bonus being super good, like White Scars and sorta Iron Hands in 7th, ended up not mattering a lot because every Chapter got free vehicles.

Fix the free vehicle garbage and THEN see if the bonuses are too much.

Wouldn't it be better to tweak the cost of individual units, based on their subfaction?

I suggest this because some subfaction traits are far more useful for some units than for others.

 vipoid wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to tweak the cost of individual units, based on their subfaction?

I suggest this because some subfaction traits are far more useful for some units than for others.

What's considered "useful" though? Black Templars and Blood Angels seems bad on vehicles until you discover that they can do Rhino charge more reliably so that non-flying units have to fall back and can't shoot. Devastators are more a shooting unit, but price wise they literally have the same amount of benefits as a Tactical Marine. Captains won't care about being Imperial Fists until you hive them 8 shots via Storm Bolter and the TL one on a bike.

At some point it's fine to just admit certain units just don't get the same mileage and that's okay.

 Eldarain wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or they could just not make Iron Hands a three parter Chapter Tactic and give Word Bearers rules that they should not be embarrassed about.

Those are pretty easy solutions.

They've had 4 publications in 8th to do that for the XVII and chose not to (not counting the CAs)

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with reverting to an army having one set of rules and your paint/unit preference return to just that, a preference.

But they've opened the bloat gates so some effort to differentiate the power it unlocks would be nice.

Leaving it as is because you can take a crap list that gains nothing from the free abilities is not great game design. (Though between free three part trait and Doctrines that book would still give more than most even assembled intentionally poorly)

+1.

UltraMarines should differ from Sallies or Black Templar or whatever by paint job and a habit of taking a much more structured and integrated army.

It's kinda silly that a Raven Guard (or Alpha Legion or Alaitoc) Marine is so much stealthier than the advanced UM/Sally/etc units. RG should use more stealthy/ambushy loadouts by habit and doctrine, but a Marine is still a Marine. If a blue one can do it, a green one can do it.

 vipoid wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to tweak the cost of individual units, based on their subfaction?

I suggest this because some subfaction traits are far more useful for some units than for others.

It would be the best way but when I've brought it up in the past it was decried as far too much work to expect them to both implement and adjust moving forward.

This was my best shot at GW's usual broad stroke wide ranging fix to a complex issue.

Relegate primaris to open play: easy fix.

 Blackie wrote:
Relegate primaris to open play: easy fix.

You're kidding right?

More like move Classic Marines to Legends and reduce the price of Primaris Marines so they are more competitive, or give them Invulnerable saves with their current cost. It's just dumb dropping a 5 man squad of Lambdan Lions (70pts) with Overcharged Plasmaguns at Rapid Fire range and then
just evaporating a squad of Primaris Marines worth significantly more. 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, AP-4 (no saves), 5 shots of Plasma incl. the Pistol, and 2 HSLG shots at AP-3 on top...

 Slayer6 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Relegate primaris to open play: easy fix.

You're kidding right?

More like move Classic Marines to Legends and reduce the price of Primaris Marines so they are more competitive, or give them Invulnerable saves with their current cost. It's just dumb dropping a 5 man squad of Lambdan Lions (70pts) with Overcharged Plasmaguns at Rapid Fire range and then
just evaporating a squad of Primaris Marines worth significantly more. 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, AP-4 (no saves), 5 shots of Plasma incl. the Pistol, and 2 HSLG shots at AP-3 on top...

So that's 5 shots.
10/3 hits.
25/9 wounds, or about three dead Intercessors out of cover.

Plus 2 Hellgun shots, for.
4/3 hits
4/9 wounds
10/27 failed saves, or unlikely to do even a single wound.

Whereas the two remaining Intercessors can shoot (4 shots, 8/3 hits, 16/9 wounds, 40/27 dead) and charge (8 attacks, 16/3 hits, 32/9 wounds, 16/9 dead) for a total of 3 of the Scions dead.

Two Intercessors can mulch the better part of the Scion Squad, while the whole Scion Squad in optimal conditions fails to kill the Intercessors. Scions are good-but they aren't as good as Marines.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Scions are good-but they aren't as good as Marines.

No...

Point for point, they are significantly better than marines...

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Slayer6 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Relegate primaris to open play: easy fix.

You're kidding right?

More like move Classic Marines to Legends and reduce the price of Primaris Marines so they are more competitive, or give them Invulnerable saves with their current cost. It's just dumb dropping a 5 man squad of Lambdan Lions (70pts) with Overcharged Plasmaguns at Rapid Fire range and then
just evaporating a squad of Primaris Marines worth significantly more. 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, AP-4 (no saves), 5 shots of Plasma incl. the Pistol, and 2 HSLG shots at AP-3 on top...

So that's 5 shots.
10/3 hits.
25/9 wounds, or about three dead Intercessors out of cover.

Plus 2 Hellgun shots, for.
4/3 hits
4/9 wounds
10/27 failed saves, or unlikely to do even a single wound.

Whereas the two remaining Intercessors can shoot (4 shots, 8/3 hits, 16/9 wounds, 40/27 dead) and charge (8 attacks, 16/3 hits, 32/9 wounds, 16/9 dead) for a total of 3 of the Scions dead.

Two Intercessors can mulch the better part of the Scion Squad, while the whole Scion Squad in optimal conditions fails to kill the Intercessors. Scions are good-but they aren't as good as Marines.

I'd rather just see the math for Dragons since they get twice the shots on their Hot Shots thanks to the extra 6" range.

5 Plasma shots
10/3 hits
25/9 wounds
125/54 failed saves, or about two dead Intercessors

4 Hellgun shots
8/3 hits
8/9 wounds
16/27 failed saves, or slightly under 50% odds of doing at least 1 wound, and a just shy of 11% chance of doing two wounds.

Which leaves three Intercessors left, who can attack the Scions.

6 shots
4 hits
8/3 wounds
20/9 failed saves

11 attacks
22/3 hits
44/9 wounds
22/9 failed saves

For a total of 42/9 or 4.67 dead Scions.

 JNAProductions wrote:
5 Plasma shots
10/3 hits
25/9 wounds
125/54 failed saves, or about two dead Intercessors

4 Hellgun shots
8/3 hits
8/9 wounds
16/27 failed saves, or slightly under 50% odds of doing at least 1 wound, and a just shy of 11% chance of doing two wounds.

Which leaves three Intercessors left, who can attack the Scions.

6 shots
4 hits
8/3 wounds
20/9 failed saves

11 attacks
22/3 hits
44/9 wounds
22/9 failed saves

For a total of 42/9 or 4.67 dead Scions.

You seem to like picking strange options

Plasmaguns + Pistol = 5 shots (these would be overcharged of course) AND you left out the part where I mentioned Lambdan Lions (selective viewing, I know, we all do it)
5 x 0.667 = 3.33 hits
S8 vs T4 x 3.33 hits = 2.775 successful wounds
AP-4 vs 3+ = no Save = 2.775 dead models with a good chance of a 3rd being killed.
83% chance of at least a single 1 being rolled with kills one of the Scions.

HSLGs at AP-3
2 x 0.667 = 1.33 hits
S3 vs T4 x 1.33 hits = 0.438 successful wounds
AP-3 vs 3+ = 0.438 x 0.833 = 0.366 wounds

So a pretty significant chance of causing 3 models to die just with the Plasmaguns

If they somehow get orders, this bumps it up even higher. But the key thing to note here is that the Scions are only 60 points, and they have basically recouped their cost on the drop, there being a 22.5% chance that they do not kill the third Intercessor.

So lets say the 2 surviving Intercessors return fire.

4 shots with a 3+ to hit = 4 x 0.667 = 2.667
S4 vs T3 with 2.667 shots = 1.779 failed wounds
AP-1 vs 4+ x 1.779 = 1.187 models killed

Assuming they make the assault, 2 models = 5 attacks
5 attacks, hitting on 3's = 3.33 hits
S4 vs T3 x 3.33 hits = 2.22 wounds
4+ save x 2.22 wounds = 1 model dead.

The Scions can now fight, and are down 3 models (1 from plasma, 1 from shooting, 1 from CC)
Tempestor has a chainsword. So 4 attacks total.
Scion
1 attack at 4+ = 0.5 hits
S3 vs T4 x 0.5 hits = 0.166 wounds
3+ save vs AP-1 weapons = 4+ x 0.166 wounds = 0.083 failed saves.
Tempestor
3 attacks at 3+ = 2 hits
S3 vs T4 x 2 hits = 0.667 wounds
3+ save vs AP-1 weapons = 4+ x 0.667 wounds = 0.333 failed saves

I rest my case. Scions are OP.

To balance them, there are 5 options:
Give Primaris marines an invulnerable save 6++
Give Primaris marines a point cost reduction of -10%
Give Tempestus units in general, a point hike of +20%
Remove all the regiments from Tempestus, and leave them with just Stormtroopers (the most balanced one)
Remove the special deployment options from Tempestus (make them slog over the field like everyone else)

I was responding to Slayer-Fan's request to see the +6" range Regiment.

And you forgot to include Doctrines, since you can't DS T1. You also forgot Shock Assault and the Intercessor Sergeant's Chainsword, adding 3 attacks to the combat.

Also, you say "Assuming they make the assault" like that's hard. The Scions drop within 12". With a 6" move, the Intercessors need only a 5" charge AT MOST. That's an easy charge.

Ahem, adding a percentage to certain sub-factions requires a bit of math... but is pretty easy to handle for garage-groups.

Chapter Fancy-Pants gets a 2% uptick, while Chapter Sublime-Shirts gets a 5% uptick.

Scales with all models... a 100 point unit becomes 105... a 267 point unit becomes 280.

For all “closed” groups, proposing taxes on stronger armies is like playing golf with a handicap. You can tailor the game to each person’s ability / available selections to make closer, more exciting games.

Tournaments could hypothetically do the same... part of the tourney pack. Space Crocodiles are +5%. Space Alligators are +7 %. All other Space Lizards are standard cost.

Space Falcons are -10% because they’re especially terrible, Space eagles are +20% because they’re broken.

Space Vacuums are +3%, Space Blenders are +5%.

Hell, they don’t even need to be balanced! Create a weird, one-weekend meta to mix things up! Dark Eldar are 30% off all weekend!

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was responding to Slayer-Fan's request to see the +6" range Regiment.

And you forgot to include Doctrines, since you can't DS T1. You also forgot Shock Assault and the Intercessor Sergeant's Chainsword, adding 3 attacks to the combat.

Also, you say "Assuming they make the assault" like that's hard. The Scions drop within 12". With a 6" move, the Intercessors need only a 5" charge AT MOST. That's an easy charge.

Selective options once again (you really need to stop doing this!) - Valkyrie with supersonic can drop Scions on T1. It can't fire, but that's beside the point.

As for assuming they make the assault, if the distance is not 2", but is 3" or more, then it is not assured, their chance of a successful charge is 88.9%. Also, you still have not specified a Chapter, Doctrine and Stratagem that you are planning on using.

My typical Turn 1: All Valkyries move 65" straight at the enemy forces, most are small Plasmagun squads. This enables them to be dropped 9" away from an enemy on the first turn, as the drop is specified to be disembarking, they can also opt to move in a little closer (to RF range - if needed).

Let's explore the various weapon and squad configurations.

We already covered the Lambdan Lions. Iotan Dragons are usually reserved for a deep strike in T2 or T3 with a 5-command Prime. Kappic Eagles definitely make for an interesting Melta drop. Hell, they even work for full sized regular squads who can benefit from the WL Trait: Master Vox, where the WL can give them orders from inside a Valkyrie up to 24" away.

So, alright we have the Kappic Eagles, same squad configuration as before, but receiving some bonus orders.

2+ to hit, Take Aim orders (reroll 1's), hell if needed the Precision Drop stratagem could be used to prevent casualties

5 Overcharged Plasma shots
5 shots = 83.33%, now take the reroll = 97.22% chance that all shots hit, so 4.861 hits
2+ to wound x 4.861 hits = 4.05 failed wounds
6+ save x 4.05 = 3.375 dead models

4 HSLG shots
4 shots = 83.33%, now take the reroll = 97.22% chance that all shots hit, so 3.888 hits
5+ to wound x 3.88 hits = 1.295 failed wounds (if Point Blank Efficiency is used (+1S), then the count is 1.94 failed wounds)
5+ save x 1.295 failed wounds = 0.864 failed saves. If Point Blank Efficiency is used, then 1.29 failed saves.

In any case, they have completely covered their cost and thus served their purpose. If they survive another round, then they can go on to annoy something else.

My Iotan Dragons drop usually results in the following:

5 full 10 man squads, each with just a Plasma Pistol on the Tempestor, resulting in each squad costing 95 points.

FRFSRF on 9 HSLG = 36 shots at 9" range. Let's give this specific squad Point Blank Efficiency.
36 shots, 3+ to hit = 24 hits
S4 vs T4 x 24 hits = 12 wounds
5+ vs 12 Wounds = 8 failed saves
So 4 dead Intercessors

Plasma Pistol
1 shot = 0.667 hits
2+ to wound x 0.667 hits = 0.555 failed wounds
6+ save vs 0.555 failed wounds = 0.463 dead models.
So basically a 46% chance that he will kill an Intercessor, or a 16.66% chance he kills himself.

It's pretty reasonable to estimate that this squad will destroy an Intercessor squad on the drop (which costs about the same collectively).

Generally I don't use one squad to take another squad, normally 2:1 so I can save the CP for something else.

My basic rule of thumb: if a Scion squad kills its own points cost on the drop, it's already dead and served its purpose. If it somehow survives... bonus points!

Slayer, JNAP, your math penises are of equally impressive length and girth.

Topic isn’t about that example. Propose ways to fix unequal subfactions. Thanks.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Slayer, JNAP, your math penises are of equally impressive length and girth.

Topic isn’t about that example. Propose ways to fix unequal subfactions. Thanks.

Fair-Slayer, should you wish to continue the discussion, feel free to make a thread about how OP Scions are.

Honestly, I think the best way to make different subfactions equal is to make the traits more or less equal in value. Charging different points for different subfactions is gonna get real messy, real quick.

Agreed. I genuinely wish that paint schemes were purely aesthetic. Sub factions were a bad idea before, and are bad ideas again.

Peeing into the wind though, I think. The rules team seems bent on 3 or more layers of rules for each model. :(

 greatbigtree wrote:
Agreed. I genuinely wish that paint schemes were purely aesthetic. Sub factions were a bad idea before, and are bad ideas again.

Peeing into the wind though, I think. The rules team seems bent on 3 or more layers of rules for each model. :(

I like having different subfaction traits-it can let the same models feel different.

But I do agree that if GW can't balance them, they shouldn't have them.

For me, I want models to be predictable. If I want a model to do something different I use a different unit. Which is why I advocate different points for different subfactions. They’re basically different units, so should have different points.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ahem, adding a percentage to certain sub-factions requires a bit of math... but is pretty easy to handle for garage-groups.

Chapter Fancy-Pants gets a 2% uptick, while Chapter Sublime-Shirts gets a 5% uptick.

Scales with all models... a 100 point unit becomes 105... a 267 point unit becomes 280.

For all “closed” groups, proposing taxes on stronger armies is like playing golf with a handicap. You can tailor the game to each person’s ability / available selections to make closer, more exciting games.

Tournaments could hypothetically do the same... part of the tourney pack. Space Crocodiles are +5%. Space Alligators are +7 %. All other Space Lizards are standard cost.

Space Falcons are -10% because they’re especially terrible, Space eagles are +20% because they’re broken.

Space Vacuums are +3%, Space Blenders are +5%.

Hell, they don’t even need to be balanced! Create a weird, one-weekend meta to mix things up! Dark Eldar are 30% off all weekend!

This would work better than my concept especially when considering multiple detachments.

If they ever switched to a more living ruleset they could tweak the percentages as results come in.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Agreed. I genuinely wish that paint schemes were purely aesthetic. Sub factions were a bad idea before, and are bad ideas again.

Peeing into the wind though, I think. The rules team seems bent on 3 or more layers of rules for each model. :(

That is exactly the problem!

Honestly the best balance I think 40k ever had was during the start of 3E, when Space Marines were literally Space Marines. Sure some had a specific colour scheme, such as Crimson Fists, but they played as... Space Marines!

Imperial Guard? They had plenty of character, different models, but a Mordian performed exactly the same as a Praetorian. For me, the change really started when they added the Codex Supplement: Catachans...

After this, you had the subfaction drive which has occupied Warhammer: 40000 for the last 20 years... Subfaction rulebooks, unique models, characters, etc...

Looking at the 3E rulebook, I have all the factions in an Index all laid out for me to view, and play with, to start playing all I needed was some dice, the rulebook, some models, a tape measure, blast markers and an opponent.

Now?

I need: Rulebook, Psychic Awakening: War of the Spider, The Greater Good, Vigilus Defiant, X number of White Dwarf publications, the latest FAQ, the latest Errata printout, the latest Chapter Approved, Tape Measure, Dice, Models, an opponent - AND for them to have all of the same!

The result is a massively convoluted mess, almost a literal interpretation of The Eye of Terror...

 Slayer6 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Agreed. I genuinely wish that paint schemes were purely aesthetic. Sub factions were a bad idea before, and are bad ideas again.

Peeing into the wind though, I think. The rules team seems bent on 3 or more layers of rules for each model. :(

That is exactly the problem!

Honestly the best balance I think 40k ever had was during the start of 3E, when Space Marines were literally Space Marines. Sure some had a specific colour scheme, such as Crimson Fists, but they played as... Space Marines!

Imperial Guard? They had plenty of character, different models, but a Mordian performed exactly the same as a Praetorian. For me, the change really started when they added the Codex Supplement: Catachans...

After this, you had the subfaction drive which has occupied Warhammer: 40000 for the last 20 years... Subfaction rulebooks, unique models, characters, etc...

Looking at the 3E rulebook, I have all the factions in an Index all laid out for me to view, and play with, to start playing all I needed was some dice, the rulebook, some models, a tape measure, blast markers and an opponent.

Now?

I need: Rulebook, Psychic Awakening: War of the Spider, The Greater Good, Vigilus Defiant, X number of White Dwarf publications, the latest FAQ, the latest Errata printout, the latest Chapter Approved, Tape Measure, Dice, Models, an opponent - AND for them to have all of the same!

The result is a massively convoluted mess, almost a literal interpretation of The Eye of Terror...

Sure, if you ignore that the Angels and Wolves already had codex support in 2e...