Switch Theme:

Problem with 40k Balance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Been Around the Block





WH40k is becoming increasingly difficult to balance. Recently, a lot of armies are getting stacking buffs, and I feel like this makes it more difficult to balance the game because the value of a unit ranges widely depending on the buffs available. This has always kind'of been in the game, but it's getting increasingly "more". I say more because I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing, it just is.

Here's an example: Repentia

Repentia are not, in themselves, broken; in fact, they're super mediocre with their base statline; however, you can make them broken:

1. Bloody Rose Benefits (+1 attack, -1ap)
2. Bloody Rose stratagem (+1 to wound)
3. The passion (Exploding 6s on unmodified wound rolls)
4. Missionary (+1 attack)
5. Desperate for Redemption (Fight twice)
6. Triumph of St. Katherine (+1 to hit)
7. Palatine/Superior (Re-roll wound rolls of 1)

You're not likely to have every single one of these go off at the same time, but it is something that if you could pull this off, you can one-hit anything in the game barring a warwound titan.

The problem is, just going on the unit's stats it isn't, in itself, broken. It's when you combo everything together that it gets out of hand.

And there's other stuff in the game that does this: Ork Boyz

1. Ghazghkull (+1 attack)
2. Choppa (+1 attack)
3 20+ unit (+1 attack)
4. Goffs (Re-rolling hit rolls of 1 + 6s generate extra attacks)
5. Waagh Banner/Lukky Stikk (+1 to hit)
6. Get Stukk in Ladz (Fight twice)
7. Skarboyz (+1 strength)
8. Overwhelming Green Tide (Bring the unit make at full size)

This isn't particularly broken because choppas don't have ap, but if they had ap, a unit of 30 doing this would one-hit a knight without the fight twice stratagem. Without any of these buffs, though, the unit is mediocre.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the solution isn't simply to increase the points of the unit, because what's making the unit good isn't the unit itself in many cases, but the thing buffing it. This makes it difficult to gauge the value of a unit on paper because there's so many external modifiers making the unit work. It also becomes an issue that the same buffs might break something else. Any Sister of Battle unit that gets released in the future has the potential to use most of the stuff that buffs Repentia, like the new Celestian Sacrosents. Same thing with Orkz. Any Ork infantry in the future can use waagh banner, ghazghkull and clan traits, so that has to be kept in mind when balancing those units.

I don't think this is bad for the game, but I do think it makes balancing an issue; and I feel like the game is adding a lot more of these things because most armies are getting a combat doctrine-like ability

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/02 11:46:38


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






You must be new here, welcome to 40k, where points are made up and balance doesn't matter.

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





The problem of units getting very good in certain combinations is probably as old as 40K.

It was curbed in 8th thanks to the keyword system and to characters not sharing rules with the unit. 9th is now bringing it back a bit.
   
Made in nl
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





cjmate8 wrote:
[...] This isn't particularly broken because choppas don't have ap [...]


Do we tell him?
   
Made in ru
Fresh-Faced New User




cjmate8 wrote:

You're not likely to have every single one of these go off at the same time, but it is something that if you could pull this off, you can one-hit anything in the game barring a warwound titan.

The problem is, just going on the unit's stats it isn't, in itself, broken. It's when you combo everything together that it gets out of hand.

Yes, and it is extremely funny that some people think that 8th and 9th got rid of the problems 7th had.
40k has always been a mess, GW have never been interested in making the game consistent, structured, minimal (as opposed to bloated) and balanced.
Also, the thing is that you cannot blame the players for seeking those crazy combos. They are playing the game correctly, finding optimal strategies and lists, combining the most efficient things. It is what players do in every game - they look for the most efficient ways to play. Forcing an ethic on them that would go something like 'don't be that guy, come on, you're not here to win games' is ridiculous (I have known cases where people actually proposed that). That's why I agree that this is a flaw of the game.

As for what we can do, I am at a loss. Making up our own rules requires a lot of effort and it would make newcomers confused.
40k is really going down hill. It was bad and now it is getting worse (T5 orks anyone?).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/02 12:53:51


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

cjmate8 wrote:


And there's other stuff in the game that does this: Ork Boyz

1. Ghazghkull (+1 attack)
2. Choppa (+1 attack)
3 20+ unit (+1 attack)
4. Goffs (Re-rolling hit rolls of 1 + 6s generate extra attacks)
5. Waagh Banner/Lukky Stikk (+1 to hit)
6. Get Stukk in Ladz (Fight twice)
7. Skarboyz (+1 strength)
8. Overwhelming Green Tide (Bring the unit make at full size)

This isn't particularly broken because choppas don't have ap, but if they had ap, a unit of 30 doing this would one-hit a knight without the fight twice stratagem. Without any of these buffs, though, the unit is mediocre.


Well, the whole Ghaz + 30boyz + banner nob combo costs 638 points, which is far more expensive than an imperial knight. Plus those stratagems costs 3, 1 and 3 CPs respectively. So the entire combo is utterly expensive, both points and CP wise, and melee only. I don't really see any issue if this combination has the potential to bring down a knight, in fact I'd be disappointed if it couldn't.

PS: I don't play greentides .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/02 13:05:13



 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






cjmate8 wrote:
1. Ghazghkull (+1 attack)
2. Choppa (+1 attack)
3 20+ unit (+1 attack)
4. Goffs (Re-rolling hit rolls of 1 + 6s generate extra attacks)
5. Waagh Banner/Lukky Stikk (+1 to hit)
6. Get Stukk in Ladz (Fight twice)
7. Skarboyz (+1 strength)
8. Overwhelming Green Tide (Bring the unit make at full size)

This isn't particularly broken because choppas don't have ap, but if they had ap, a unit of 30 doing this would one-hit a knight without the fight twice stratagem. Without any of these buffs, though, the unit is mediocre.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the solution isn't simply to increase the points of the unit, because what's making the unit good isn't the unit itself in many cases, but the thing buffing it. This makes it difficult to gauge the value of a unit on paper because there's so many external modifiers making the unit work. It also becomes an issue that the same buffs might break something else. Any Sister of Battle unit that gets released in the future has the potential to use most of the stuff that buffs Repentia, like the new Celestian Sacrosents. Same thing with Orkz. Any Ork infantry in the future can use waagh banner, ghazghkull and clan traits, so that has to be kept in mind when balancing those units.

I don't think this is bad for the game, but I do think it makes balancing an issue; and I feel like the game is adding a lot more of these things because most armies are getting a combat doctrine-like ability

I cut the sisters because I have no clue about that army. You also got some rules wrong, but I think the point you are trying to make is clear.

In regards to boyz, the big hole in your argument is that those buffs are neither free (points or opportunity costs), nor do the they have infinite range, nor are they unconditional, nor is that unit guaranteed to be able to apply all that power to something worth the trouble, nor are you guaranteed to even attack once with many of those models despite them reaching combat unwounded.

And even then, I don't that think 240+300+85 points and 4 CP being able to one-round a castellan/knight tyrant when all the stars align is a problem whatsoever.

What is a balance problem is the green tide stratagem because free models are bad. I fully expect it to be gone or severly limited in the next codex.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/02 13:43:22



 
   
Made in ru
Fresh-Faced New User




 Blackie wrote:


Well, the whole Ghaz + 30boyz + banner nob combo costs 638 points, which is far more expensive than an imperial knight. Plus those stratagems costs 3, 1 and 3 CPs respectively. So the entire combo is utterly expensive, both points and CP wise, and melee only. I don't really see any issue if this combination has the potential to bring down a knight, in fact I'd be disappointed if it couldn't.

PS: I don't play greentides .

If a unit costs more points than another unit, it doesn't mean it is stronger in every respect and should win all brawls on average. Points don't reflect the 'power' of a unit, they are a tool to limit and frame list building. A horde of orks that costs 600 points might be deadly for infantry, but helpless against a big-ass tank. At least it's how things are supposed to be. The game in its current state operates just like you said, a unit is just a bunch of numbers with very minor qualitative differences between unit types. So in that case of course you're upset a greentide can't take on a knight. But in a good game, you shouldn't be.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

This is an excellent point which is really the driving factor behind codex creep.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Halifax

All GW can do is either increase a unit's deadliness or its survivability, and that's basically all a unit can do.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models.


Hey, let's be fair: GW has been adding more rules to things in 9th, but it hasn't been completely additive, and they also have been altering core statlines and reducing auras in favor of targeted abiliites, which are much more balance-able in that the model giving the ability and in some cases, just the ability itself can have a point cost in and of itself.

If the "ignore ap-1/ap-2" ability from admech does turn out to be broken, GW can now increase the cost of specifically that ability, which is a better balancing lever than if it was just there, present as an open-ended aura literally any unit could use stapled onto a model.

Within GW's self-imposed arbitrary restrictions (no changey rules only changey point costorinos) the new way theyve been doing stuff in 9th is, technically, more healthy than in 8th and especially in late-stage 8th ie Psychic Awakening.

The only element that frustrates me in 9th specifically is the addition of the stupid, stupid purity bonus rules, which are just clear bloat and compound in complexity with the new stanard of every single subfaction trait being 2 separate abilities. The game would be infinitely healthier if GW had just said "Whoops, sorry, Narrative play only" when the 2.0dex was as busted as it turned out to be, and then they'd just abandoned the idea of purity bonus rules instead relying on the simple, effective CP penalty to limit souping in 9th.

Cut Blade Artists, Combat Doctrines, Warp Tides, Contagions, Necron Programs, etc and apply some point balance from there (I'm aware Marines would need a boost to compensate for losing the MUCH stronger doctrine bonuses) and the game would be in a much much healthier spot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/02 13:30:59


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Welcome to 40k, OP. This is why chaos cultists were hit with multiple nerf bats. Can you imagine why a model that is Str 3, WS4, BS 4, T3, 1W firing a str 3 AP0 gun with a paper 6+ can get hit by multiple nerf bats?

Because of exactly what you said in your post. Its not the model or unit itself, its the various buffs, strategems, etc that can be applied to a unit.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Eldenfirefly wrote:
Welcome to 40k, OP. This is why chaos cultists were hit with multiple nerf bats. Can you imagine why a model that is Str 3, WS4, BS 4, T3, 1W firing a str 3 AP0 gun with a paper 6+ can get hit by multiple nerf bats?

Because of exactly what you said in your post. Its not the model or unit itself, its the various buffs, strategems, etc that can be applied to a unit.


Neither of those examples are truly OP, because they would require a large number of support models.

Those Repentia need Rhinos for one. Desperate for Redemption is 3CP at the end of the fight phase so if your Repentia with T3 and almost no save survive it might be worth it.

   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Eldenfirefly wrote:
Welcome to 40k, OP. This is why chaos cultists were hit with multiple nerf bats. Can you imagine why a model that is Str 3, WS4, BS 4, T3, 1W firing a str 3 AP0 gun with a paper 6+ can get hit by multiple nerf bats?

Because of exactly what you said in your post. Its not the model or unit itself, its the various buffs, strategems, etc that can be applied to a unit.


Neither of those examples are truly OP, because they would require a large number of support models.

Those Repentia need Rhinos for one. Desperate for Redemption is 3CP at the end of the fight phase so if your Repentia with T3 and almost no save survive it might be worth it.

No, a better example would be Obliterators, which are priced as if they'll be getting VOTLW + Cacophony on them every turn. Support units not needed as they'll be deploying via deep strike.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






The increased difficulty of balancing doesn't matter because they aren't properly accounting for even the basic factors to begin with. At this point it is about as likely to help as it is to hurt in any given instance.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block





 Jidmah wrote:
cjmate8 wrote:
1. Ghazghkull (+1 attack)
2. Choppa (+1 attack)
3 20+ unit (+1 attack)
4. Goffs (Re-rolling hit rolls of 1 + 6s generate extra attacks)
5. Waagh Banner/Lukky Stikk (+1 to hit)
6. Get Stukk in Ladz (Fight twice)
7. Skarboyz (+1 strength)
8. Overwhelming Green Tide (Bring the unit make at full size)

This isn't particularly broken because choppas don't have ap, but if they had ap, a unit of 30 doing this would one-hit a knight without the fight twice stratagem. Without any of these buffs, though, the unit is mediocre.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the solution isn't simply to increase the points of the unit, because what's making the unit good isn't the unit itself in many cases, but the thing buffing it. This makes it difficult to gauge the value of a unit on paper because there's so many external modifiers making the unit work. It also becomes an issue that the same buffs might break something else. Any Sister of Battle unit that gets released in the future has the potential to use most of the stuff that buffs Repentia, like the new Celestian Sacrosents. Same thing with Orkz. Any Ork infantry in the future can use waagh banner, ghazghkull and clan traits, so that has to be kept in mind when balancing those units.

I don't think this is bad for the game, but I do think it makes balancing an issue; and I feel like the game is adding a lot more of these things because most armies are getting a combat doctrine-like ability

I cut the sisters because I have no clue about that army. You also got some rules wrong, but I think the point you are trying to make is clear.

In regards to boyz, the big hole in your argument is that those buffs are neither free (points or opportunity costs), nor do the they have infinite range, nor are they unconditional, nor is that unit guaranteed to be able to apply all that power to something worth the trouble, nor are you guaranteed to even attack once with many of those models despite them reaching combat unwounded.

And even then, I don't that think 240+300+85 points and 4 CP being able to one-round a castellan/knight tyrant when all the stars align is a problem whatsoever.

What is a balance problem is the green tide stratagem because free models are bad. I fully expect it to be gone or severly limited in the next codex.


I don't think any of this is bad, or that people shouldn't do it, I just wanted to point out that it's more complicated than people presume. For example, repentia aren't being ran in non-bloody rose. If Repentia are broken, a points increase just further incentivizes people not to run them in other factions. The issue is in the things that buff them, which are increasingly more complicated. I don't think this is bad, just complicated, and it seems to be getting more complicated.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/02 17:54:21


 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

They've actually been changing a ton of profiles in 9th - as a Necrons player I can attest to suddenly having a lot more T5 to play with than before.
   
Made in ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

They've actually been changing a ton of profiles in 9th - as a Necrons player I can attest to suddenly having a lot more T5 to play with than before.


That wasn't what I meant. Also its still additive and not solving the problems that 40k has with dozens of rules scattered everywhere.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sim-Life wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

They've actually been changing a ton of profiles in 9th - as a Necrons player I can attest to suddenly having a lot more T5 to play with than before.


That wasn't what I meant. Also its still additive and not solving the problems that 40k has with dozens of rules scattered everywhere.


....improving a unit's statline and base rules isn't what you meant by "rather than just altering the model's rules"?

What would be the 'win condition' for GW here, then, for the 9th ed codexes to be a good thing?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

They've actually been changing a ton of profiles in 9th - as a Necrons player I can attest to suddenly having a lot more T5 to play with than before.


That wasn't what I meant. Also its still additive and not solving the problems that 40k has with dozens of rules scattered everywhere.


....improving a unit's statline and base rules isn't what you meant by "rather than just altering the model's rules"?

What would be the 'win condition' for GW here, then, for the 9th ed codexes to be a good thing?


Piling buffs onto the unit statline/base rules doesn't address the fact that GW's approach to "balance" is to "buff things at random to counter whatever the last thing they screwed up by buffing was", no.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




WH40k is becoming increasingly difficult to balance. Recently, a lot of armies are getting stacking buffs, and I feel like this makes it more difficult to balance the game because the value of a unit ranges widely depending on the buffs available. This has always kind'of been in the game, but it's getting increasingly "more". I say more because I don't know whether this is a good or bad thing, it just is.


Honestly, if you think it's bad now, you should have seen 7th. 8th/9th have NOTHING on 7th. lol Units that were literally un-hit-able because they were off the table and couldn't be targeted, but COULD themselves grant buffs. Invis, 2++ re-rollable saves ...

9th isn't perfect, but it's a breath of fresh air comparatively speaking.

Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.


The problem with this line of thought though, is that altering the model's rules, will often have the same knock-on effect as the additive fixes you mention. We know this, because that's what's happened when they've tried it. There are also units where, they are good because of a buff they get from another unit. Simple solution right? That model simply can't buff the problem unit anymore. But now BOTH units are useless.

I think you're right in that they probably too often jump to a sort of additive design where it feels almost lazy. "Oh - that unit's under-performing. Ummmmm ...... +1 in CC! FIXED IT", but I think you need to have a wholistic approach to the fixes that they don't always have.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/02 18:39:17


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
The problem with GWs approach to balance is that they take an additive approach rather than a reductive. To fix units they just pile on more +1s and rerolls or release models with an aura rather than actually just fix the issues with models. Thinking about this I remember the moment I think I was done with 40k was the Tyranid PA where they added in a bunch of strats for underperforming units rather than just altering the models rules. It was something they could have FAQ'd but they decided to go about it in the worst way possible in order to sell another book.

They've actually been changing a ton of profiles in 9th - as a Necrons player I can attest to suddenly having a lot more T5 to play with than before.


That wasn't what I meant. Also its still additive and not solving the problems that 40k has with dozens of rules scattered everywhere.


....improving a unit's statline and base rules isn't what you meant by "rather than just altering the model's rules"?

What would be the 'win condition' for GW here, then, for the 9th ed codexes to be a good thing?


Piling buffs onto the unit statline/base rules doesn't address the fact that GW's approach to "balance" is to "buff things at random to counter whatever the last thing they screwed up by buffing was", no.


yeah GW certainly never nerfs things that appear frequently in competitive play, Certainly not within the last, I guess 15-20 minutes?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The increased difficulty of balancing doesn't matter because they aren't properly accounting for even the basic factors to begin with. At this point it is about as likely to help as it is to hurt in any given instance.
Exactly.
It might be hard to achieve perfect balance. It is not hard to do basic things like...calculate the average damage increase of a 1point stratagem compared to other ones. If one Averages 3 mortal wounds and another 6...there is a clear issue. If a stratagem turns a str 3 into the most deadly weapon the in the game...yeah...something is off. Scientism not even required here. GW is failing over and over at very basic things. At this point it cant be considered failing. They are actually succeeding at giving us the unbalanced rules that they want. Only explanation.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 the_scotsman wrote:
...yeah GW certainly never nerfs things that appear frequently in competitive play, Certainly not within the last, I guess 15-20 minutes?


GW does hike the prices on things that see too much tournament play, yes, and occasionally rewords a stratagem. They buff things way more than they nerf them, however, and I can't recall them ever nerfing a statline (except by accident when they didn't do any math before writing the 8e Indexes), so the overall trend is power creep piled upon power creep.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Nurglitch wrote:
All GW can do is either increase a unit's deadliness or its survivability, and that's basically all a unit can do.

Mobility and utility.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Xenomancers wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The increased difficulty of balancing doesn't matter because they aren't properly accounting for even the basic factors to begin with. At this point it is about as likely to help as it is to hurt in any given instance.
Exactly.
It might be hard to achieve perfect balance. It is not hard to do basic things like...calculate the average damage increase of a 1point stratagem compared to other ones. If one Averages 3 mortal wounds and another 6...there is a clear issue. If a stratagem turns a str 3 into the most deadly weapon the in the game...yeah...something is off. Scientism not even required here. GW is failing over and over at very basic things. At this point it cant be considered failing. They are actually succeeding at giving us the unbalanced rules that they want. Only explanation.


As has probably been pointed out in the past, there actually isn't an entirely clear issue.

Let's take the whole 'x strat does Y mortal wounds while Y strat does Z mortal wounds, CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY OP!!!" - it never seems to actually examine the circumstances of how and why the number of mortal wounds from the strat are achieved.

How many points of models/upgrades/whatever do you have to put on a unit in order to make the stratagem work?

Is the action that generates the mortal wounds putting the unit in a situation it wants to be in, or a situation it doesn't want to be in? A stratagem that generates mortal wounds for a close combat unit that requires that close combat unit to charge is obviously going to be inherently more useful than a stratagem that generates mortal wounds for a shooting unit that requires that shooting unit to charge.

You actually make the argument less compelling the more you simplify the situation and make it seem like 'a no brainer'.

By default, most stratagems that generate mortal wounds basically on-demand tend to have a value of 2MW for 1CP on average. Since it's a super recent codex, let's use the Drukhari "Haywire Grenade" stratagem as a template for that baseline - it's slightly limited (only works on vehicles) but achieving it is very easy (basically any INFANTRY unit in the codex needs to be within grenade range, and the codex is full of fast open topped transports.)

Similar point of comparison, the stratagem "Hellfire Round" or "Hellfire Bolt" or whatever the D3 from a heavy bolter is called in the marine 'dex. Achieving it is low cost (include 1 Infantry-borne 15pt weapon upgrade anywhere in your list and be within 36" range) and on average it gives slightly lower than 2mw, but in its somewhat more limited form, it gives 2mw on average (2/3 chance to cause 3MW = 2mw on average vs monsters)

The outlier we are discussing here, I presume, is the new version of the Wrath of Mars stratagem, which is 1CP for any unit under 10PL, which includes basically any of the unit combinations that can with average rolls get it to its cap of 6mw - 10 sicarian infiltrators, 10 skystalkers, 20 skitarii of either type, etc.

Given that in order to generate 3mw from this stratagem, you need to put down 27 shots on average, the amount of investment to get up to the cap is fairly substantial, but it seems like the PL cap for the stratagem to go from 1cp to 2cp is what's off.

Changing the cap from 10PL to 8PL would allow a min-size squad of Kataphron Destroyers with Grav and Phosphor, which generate a little under 2MW with the strat. 15 skitarii vanguard might still potentially be a problem as those could generate 5mw from the stratagem, so you could either bump up that unit's Power Level rating in particular, or lower the cap down to 6 and just accept that it won't be good with Kataphrons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...yeah GW certainly never nerfs things that appear frequently in competitive play, Certainly not within the last, I guess 15-20 minutes?


GW does hike the prices on things that see too much tournament play, yes, and occasionally rewords a stratagem. They buff things way more than they nerf them, however, and I can't recall them ever nerfing a statline (except by accident when they didn't do any math before writing the 8e Indexes), so the overall trend is power creep piled upon power creep.


Kastelan Robots went from shooting twice to +1 BS, Repulsors went from shooting twice to +1 to hit, the skitarii doggos went from 3W to 2W, the skitarii bird dudes lost their MW grenade thingies.

I have almost no doubt that if you were to take a competitive imperial soup list from the Castellan meta of 8th, and play a game where that list follows all the rules that would have applied at the time vs a current tournament competitive list from the new admech 'dex, the Castellan list would rock the Admech list's socks right off.

In fact, I'd be really curious to see how that would play out, maybe I'll try running that on TTS or something, see how much power creep there actually has or hasn't been.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/02 19:10:45


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...yeah GW certainly never nerfs things that appear frequently in competitive play, Certainly not within the last, I guess 15-20 minutes?


GW does hike the prices on things that see too much tournament play, yes, and occasionally rewords a stratagem. They buff things way more than they nerf them, however, and I can't recall them ever nerfing a statline (except by accident when they didn't do any math before writing the 8e Indexes), so the overall trend is power creep piled upon power creep.


They just axed a wound from the admech dogs. The exception that proves the rule, I guess.

The statline changes have primarily been survival based.

   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 vict0988 wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
All GW can do is either increase a unit's deadliness or its survivability, and that's basically all a unit can do.

Mobility and utility.


Utility too often ends up having been the issue they need to fix in the first place and mobility? In any other edition, I'd agree with the mobility thing, but in 9th? What do you need to get to that you currently can't? I would agree on the bigger boards that it mattered, but I still laugh when I hear "OH! It's all about the movement now!" No it's not. It's about "Let me bum-rush the objectives" or "Let me hold off and THEN bum-rush the objectives". Everything can pretty much reach everything at this point, so with the possible exception of making a unit so slow as to have it become useless, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner on mobility imo.

It's more because of table size and mission design than anything inherent to the core rules, but yeah - unless you're talking about edge cases like giving the Monolith or Impulsors the ability to "fly" again, for the most part, with the current table size/mission design, changing mobility isn't likely to solve a lot. Unfortunately.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 the_scotsman wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...yeah GW certainly never nerfs things that appear frequently in competitive play, Certainly not within the last, I guess 15-20 minutes?


GW does hike the prices on things that see too much tournament play, yes, and occasionally rewords a stratagem. They buff things way more than they nerf them, however, and I can't recall them ever nerfing a statline (except by accident when they didn't do any math before writing the 8e Indexes), so the overall trend is power creep piled upon power creep.


Kastelan Robots went from shooting twice to +1 BS, Repulsors went from shooting twice to +1 to hit, the skitarii doggos went from 3W to 2W, the skitarii bird dudes lost their MW grenade thingies.

I have almost no doubt that if you were to take a competitive imperial soup list from the Castellan meta of 8th, and play a game where that list follows all the rules that would have applied at the time vs a current tournament competitive list from the new admech 'dex, the Castellan list would rock the Admech list's socks right off.

In fact, I'd be really curious to see how that would play out, maybe I'll try running that on TTS or something, see how much power creep there actually has or hasn't been.


I said statline nerfs, I'll give you the cav but the rest of those look like special rules nerfs.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: