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.
We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/31 17:30:53
It wouldn't be a good idea to just remove every balance adjustment made so far. We'd just be right back to Dark Eldar and Admech being a problem again on top of the currently overperforming codexes. Removing some of the unnecessary nerfs might be a good idea, the nerfs to Death Guard and the Guard were unwarranted.
The problem is the way GW reacts, they are , with very few exeptions regarding stuff they really didn't expect or want, reacting to metas that no longer exist. When they were nerfing DEs, the players have already moved to a different list which was meat mountain. This leaves armies who can't just generate a second or third top tier army in a paculiar state, because their nerfs, like the ones DG got for example, feel just wierd, and unwarranted at the time they hit the meta game. Other armies who have or had one list, don't really get to play with anything after a big nerf, especially vs the new upcoming books.
Now the best thing for players, would be as if the balance patches were A free and B included both nerfs and buffs , with design studio commantary how they see the army should be played.
the we nerfed the core of your army, but this unit no one ever used is not 1-2 pts cheaper, go find a new way to play is not a good thing for a lot of factions. And can end with an anwser there is no good way to play the faction after the nerfs.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
CKO wrote: We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 16:51:04
And yeah, peel back to foundations and re-assess everything. The old skirmish basis can't keep up with what the game is trying to be now, and its affecting everything.
Take some of the best bits from LotR and AoS (particularly the AoS take on command points) and past 40k editions (I actually miss Eternal Warrior now, thanks to how absurd guns have gotten) and start over.
Definitely reduce the mass dice rolls (and rerolls) and just lower attacks in general- its unnecessary and makes first turn advantage (and the lethality in general) too extreme.
CKO wrote: We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
Turn two isn't so bad for w40k. What is really bad is something like, you play custodes or knights or marines, and your tau opponent went first. Now unless magic is going to use on his dice, it is on avarge impossible for you to even draw the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution can't be to always be trying to cut points costs and/or stack even more rules on top of the pile.
The foundations need completely rebuilding.
And here is the crux of the whole thing. GW is in the black, without doing any of those things. The community seems to have accepted the fact that some factions are valid for 3-4 months every 8-9 years. And the ways to deal with GW games problems is, something I am sure GW loves, playing 2+ GW games and owning multiple armies and factions for it. I had and still have a horrible time playing my army in w40k. At the same time over a span of 2 years I got gifted 2 starter boxs for Lumineth Lords. I was not that happy about the gifts, as I didn't play AoS. Now I do, and with an investment of 3 boxs of infantry and 2 characters, I am having uncomperable more fun. Maybe that is what GW expects from its fans. Marines are bad? Play your stormcast army in AoS. Lumineth Lords got nerfed and are unfun to play ? Here you go here is an DE or Eldar army which will make you happy.
The bad side, for the community, is that you have to be able to financialy support owning those multiple armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 19:04:31
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Maybe if the Death Guard codex didn't have bad writing to begin with we could power down. As is, no. It's funny that it's the codex mentioned for "balanced".
Some stuff seem to be just tailor made for specific editions. I hope everyone remembers that when 9th started for a very long time, practically till DE book came out. We had Harlequins and Custodes being one of the top armies. And that was with old 8th ed books. This shows, I think, that if you layer good new edition rules, on top of a book which was already doing well or great, you get a broken book.
DE to dethrone harlis required someone at GW to write a perfect list and then force the point costs to encapsule it in 2000pts. Simple points up or points down can not achive such "balancing". Unless they were something drastic and terminators started running around costing 15pts or something crazy like that.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Ordana wrote: Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
This really.
Faction balance is an intellectual concern. Its annoying that certain factions are clearly underpointed for their abilities compared with others.
But for the game as a whole, I think the biggest issue is that every faction is becoming "Codex: Glasshammer". The game is far too lethal - and consequently things are all too often decided far too early on. The only way to avoid this is to cover the board in convenient L-shaped ruins that allow you to deploy out of LOS and stay there for a while if you want to. Which you can argue is "skill" - but really its just a crutch.
And unfortunately I don't see any evidence that GW think this is an issue.
Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
jeff white wrote: E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario
I'm curious as to how you think this is a) viable as an option and b) would actually fix anything about the broken state of the game. Harlequins had a 96% win rate at Adepticon if you remove lists with skyweavers and mirror matches, they don't rely on named characters. Tau can shoot you without drawing LoS, no big reliance on named chars there. Custodes are just tougher and more killy than the models you have. Ad Mech and DE didn't really abuse named characters either. I love painting and playing with models like Grimaldus and Helbrecht but BTs aren't exactly tearing up the tournament (or even casual) scene, why shouldn't I be able to do that? There's 100 other major problems with the game that need fixed but I don't think that's one of them. I mostly hear that argument from people who haven't played much since 3rd edition and still think "named chars OP". Those are the same kind of people that want you to ask their permission to bring Forge World models despite the fact that 99.9% are less competitive for their points than that factions normal GW models...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/27 22:08:05
CKO wrote: We know that there is codex creep in 40k, the newer codex are stronger than the old. Normally we wait for nerfs to tone down the power of these codexes, but what if they take a different approach and scale down the previous nerfs.
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
jeff white wrote: Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
I agree with this! Less combos, please! Better and more varied terrain. Not every fight needs to be in ruined cities. Also, more reward for actually flanking units, getting side shots, etc. Reward positioning and movement and dynamic play rather than bland aura hammer. If that requires bring back vehicle facings and AV values then great! Also, bring back templates, for the love of god. They weren't hard to use and were great fun.
Keep some stratagems and CP stuff, but tone them down, make them one use or contingent upon certain conditions. Something like that.
Yes because the 27 slightly different special rules we have now for terrain just aren't enough to accurately portray half destroyed buildings...
The variable rules for terrain are basically:
+1 to save vs ranged
+1 to save vs ranged AND melee
Cannot-Be-Shot
Cannot-Be-Placed
Not-Actually-Protective.
There are a fuckton of words involved with all that (mostly because of GW's bizarre fascination with TLS), but that's basically what it boils down to. Not very interesting, engaging, or honestly effective.
I think that "better and more varied" refers to terrain features & rules which are actually... well.. a factor. As it stands the only terrain you give a feth about is the massive block of LoS blocking.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Would you rather them remove the nerfs on the other books to power them back up or continue to power down the newer codex?
A practical approach at this point is probably to power up and then power down. That is, it's probably easier to buff the underperformers and let everyone be a little hyper-lethal for the rest of 9th edition, and then to make a point to lower lethality in 10th edition.
Over the last few editions, my swooping hawks' lasblasters have gone from S3 Assault 3 to S3 Assault 4 to now being S4 Assault 4 and also auto-wounding on to-hit rolls of 6 for some reason. And frankly, I never felt like they were especially underpowered in either of the first two incarnations (though they did have more effective haywire grenades and grenade packs back when they were S3 Assault3.) I'd be happy to tone them back down in some way, and the same is true of a lot of the buffs my various armies' weapons have received recently. I can take or leave the AP-1 on my wyches' hekatarii blades, and I can certainly give up Blade Artists without complaint. I'm not sure my shuriken weapons really need the shuriken special rule now that they're AP-1 base. Pulse Rifles probably don't need the AP-`1 they just got. Etc.
But intentionally nerfing things like that is tricky to do unless you update everyone all at once. An edition change would be a reasonable time to do something like that. Release a great big Errata with a bunch of modest nerfs, and design the edition (and its codices) in a way that emphasizes interesting maneuvers/positioning rather than providing raw power boosts in the form of rerolls and whatnots. Take away some of the rules that grant rerolls. Give us more rules that grant a bonus when you catch the enemy in a crossfire.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Over the last few editions, my swooping hawks' lasblasters have gone from S3 Assault 3 to S3 Assault 4 to now being S4 Assault 4 and also auto-wounding on to-hit rolls of 6 for some reason.
I think this is where the issue lies. We are now rolling so many dice (and re-rolling) compared to previous editions. A Space Marine (Intercessor) can make 3 bolter shots at 24" compared to the 1 that their 7th edition First Born brother had. And the problem is across the board, not just a few select units.
Definitely power down.
And not by using points, changing points is only a last resort way to restore balance. Changing points means invalidating armies, and is also internally complex to change because they have to get the sales department involved in the changes (there is a target cost for an army of a certain faction).
Like the last dataslates did, you act on rules and profiles.
jeff white wrote: Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
LOOOOOOOOL imagine blaming named characters when they're basically not used hahahahahaha
Yeah... I do find that a lot of people who complain about named characters tend be misdiagnosing an issue. The only mechanical things that separate a named character from a generic one are:
* You can only have 1 instance of that datasheet in your army.
* They can't take relics.
* Sometimes they can't take warlord traits.
If you feel like named characters are too powerful or render their generic counterparts useless (i.e. a named librarian is always taken over a generic librarian), then what you really have a problem with is that a specific datasheet is too powerful or designed in a way that encroaches on another datasheet's niche. Neither of which is a problem unique to named characters.
(A more substantial argument against named characters is that it can be awkward for them to show up in your battles all the time, especially when they aren't especially long-lived. But at that point you're kind of just complaining about your opponent's taste in fluff.)
Baharroth was my first model, but I've yet to hear anyone accuse him of being "uber powerful" since I started playing in 5th.
Over the last few editions, my swooping hawks' lasblasters have gone from S3 Assault 3 to S3 Assault 4 to now being S4 Assault 4 and also auto-wounding on to-hit rolls of 6 for some reason.
I think this is where the issue lies. We are now rolling so many dice (and re-rolling) compared to previous editions. A Space Marine (Intercessor) can make 3 bolter shots at 24" compared to the 1 that their 7th edition First Born brother had. And the problem is across the board, not just a few select units.
Yep. And I don't see what's keeping us from rolling back changes like that other than the momentum of the power creep. (Which again, would be easy to reverse as part of an edition change.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/28 06:39:32
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Game needs to be spread across 5 turns as much as possible, it shouldn't be a rush trying to annihilate the opponent as soon as possible (aka top of 2 or 3).
About named characters, it's more a design issue that a balance one. I also don't like named characters and wish they were much more restricted than they currently are, just like any massive centerpiece model, but that has nothing to do with limiting power creep.
Yes because the 27 slightly different special rules we have now for terrain just aren't enough to accurately portray half destroyed buildings...
The variable rules for terrain are basically:
+1 to save vs ranged
+1 to save vs ranged AND melee
Cannot-Be-Shot
Cannot-Be-Placed
Not-Actually-Protective.
There are a fuckton of words involved with all that (mostly because of GW's bizarre fascination with TLS), but that's basically what it boils down to. Not very interesting, engaging, or honestly effective.
I think that "better and more varied" refers to terrain features & rules which are actually... well.. a factor. As it stands the only terrain you give a feth about is the massive block of LoS blocking.
I'm of the opinion that terrain should be designed to be basically the most important thing on the battlefield. A unit should, once dug in, be quite difficult to kill with head-on gunfire. Leaving the primary solutions to such situations being flanking, melee, or specialized weapons (flamers) to remove them. A redesign which gives focus to thinks like flanking, and makes terrain more important and engaging than simply +1 sv would be more than welcome.
Unfortunately this would require a substantial rework of 40k itself, or at least a complete overhaul of how moral works. Making moral effect how a unit functions (suppression, movement, performance, ect) and be effected by more than just casualties would be great. 40ks biggest problem (imo) is that the only way to "interact" with enemy units is via killing them (with the exception of some psychic powers).
Exactly the sentiment, exalted.
About named characters, it was only one example. Flyers may be another, super big and heavy units another, yada... And, as an example of a named character that I think might require some forewarning, Mortarian, others... I can't count how many times I have seen/heard of Mortarian for example just decimating the opponent's forces and taking way too much attention from the rest of the field and units. I suppose that this is the idea, but doesn't seem so fun play against (more than once) or challenging to employ.
Personally, I am less concerned with winning/losing and more with story, as in why the feth is Mortarian here at all? Why is he everywhere, everytime? That sort of complaint is my complaint, for the most part... Not sure what this has to do with 3rd edition, but yeah, I did enjoy those earlier editions a lot more than current (since the tragic disappointment, for me, that was 8th) even though I won a lot less then and played a lot more...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/28 11:09:23
Ordana wrote: Because a game decided by turn 2 because everyone is powered up to the moon is not a fun game?
I want a game that is fun for the full 5 turns, with jocking for advantages and swings in who is ahead. Not play a game where a 2k army removed 1500 points of the opponent in the first turn and we can pack up and go home after the first shooting phase.
This really.
Faction balance is an intellectual concern. Its annoying that certain factions are clearly underpointed for their abilities compared with others.
But for the game as a whole, I think the biggest issue is that every faction is becoming "Codex: Glasshammer". The game is far too lethal - and consequently things are all too often decided far too early on. The only way to avoid this is to cover the board in convenient L-shaped ruins that allow you to deploy out of LOS and stay there for a while if you want to. Which you can argue is "skill" - but really its just a crutch.
And unfortunately I don't see any evidence that GW think this is an issue.
Yeah. When you have the increase in power / lethality, plus the decreased board size (I *know* it's a minimum recommendation only, but seems I'm very much in the minority there), plus IGOUGO; you have a recipe for ending up with just getting your models out, tossing a coin and saying 'Yay, I go first, I win'.
Some of the best games I've had have involved a massive table (prob 8' x 4') and deploying on the short edges, so we had multiple turns of maneuvering before actually getting into combat range.
A well-balanced Codex should probably always start with maybe a 45ish% win-rate in the first few weeks and slowly rise up to that magical 50% as people get practice, reps and refine their lists.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A well-balanced Codex should probably always start with maybe a 45ish% win-rate in the first few weeks and slowly rise up to that magical 50% as people get practice, reps and refine their lists.
I think it's the opposite. A faction with a new codex should start very strong since the opponents know very little about it and haven't adapted their lists to the new meta yet. After a while that faction's WR should start dropping.
Some of the best games I've had have involved a massive table (prob 8' x 4') and deploying on the short edges, so we had multiple turns of maneuvering before actually getting into combat range.
If you halve all the ranges you might get the same results without involving massive tables.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/28 12:55:04
jeff white wrote: Imho, for me to be interested in learning a new edition of 40k, and anything more about this one including new codices yada, the game needs to return to roots. Lower models counts that are generally less Uber powerful E.g. no named characters unless by prior arrangement for some special scenario, larger tables with more realistic terrain and battlefield dynamics, rid of the card based whombo combo stackable power ups, and generally moar war less CCG with expensive plastic tokens.
Power up down whatever is mere band aid on the metastatic tumor one symptom of which is codex creep, another scale creep, another lethality creep, range creep, movement creep, and so on… trouble is marketing encroachment on game design, mba creeps imho.
