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.

No, that is not ok. The new hive fleet gargoyles should be more expensive, to reflect their increased functionality.

This would be yet another example of GW willfully breaking the game by creating a disparity between the value of 1 point spent in codex A and a point spent in codex B.

It would not be fair, or balanced, but in order to play the game like we currently do, we can either change it ourselves (the best but most laborious solution), agree to create a points exchange rate, (again a very tough task), or we can continue to operate like we have and accept this clear breach of game balance, but still play the game with equal points limits, which basically means we chose to continue to act as if 1 point is equal across the game.

Formations function essentially like what you are describing with the Have Fleet Behemoth codex. The main difference between a codex and a formation, is that the codex is the new GW enforced base line for all units of that type. Bolting on formations on top of this, that again change the point value ratio only serves to exacerbate any balance problems present in the parent codex. My suggestion is that if you really want to change something to make Nids better, let the ally with themselves, that way they can almost replicate the Skyblight style list, but pay the base line points for all their stuff, without gaining new abilities. This I have zero problem with so long as and change made is applied to all armies. You have to allow the Tau/Tau if you want to allow the Nid/Nid as it were.

Again though the issue is that if those abilities are what level the field for those books. Why is that a problem, because due to losing some flexibility in the list, they are able to compete?

I don't get this All codices must have access to stuff thing, when codices are horribly imbalanced.

Is your argument that skyblight gargs, make regular gargs worse by comparison?

or

Nids shouldn't have a top tier list because their codex sucks?

or

Because formations are a money grab, we should let people have worse armies so we don't encourage gw?

Simply put, nids don't really get better, by allying with themselves if everyone else does too.

Lets look at it this way....Nids like formations.

They have a bunch (other armies have some, and some armies have codex supplements etc.).

They like their formations because they buff a lower tier book to mid to upper tier.

They also (in a restricted detachment environment) like the Tau Formation. Tau formation is good at killing Tanks, which nids don't have, and struggle to kill, so if Tau formation lessens tanks in the meta nids profit. (if we assume that you will already see broadsides, they don't get better Vs nids using the formation)

The issue is what you want is every army getting stronger by allowing everyone the same benefits, nids don't really improve that much.

I am just trying to be consistent in that, if one army can ally with itself, all should ally with itself. It makes good fluff sense for SM to ally with themselves, but absolutely no game sense.

To be fair to everyone, every one needs the same access. Everyone has Stronghold so allow it, if everyone can ally with themselves, this is just one more way that we standardize the game to insure that each army rises and falls based on the merit of its codex and general, not the variety of DLC like add-ons GW throws out at random to sell models. Everyone has a codex=> everyone gets to use a codex, everyone has stronghold => everyone can use stronghold. etc.

And you are correct, Skybligh Gargs do make normal Gargs worse by comparison. You are now getting less bang for your point with regular Gargs therefore making them worse arbitrarily in order to promote the newest product GW Digital has rolled out.

We can in typical GW gamer fashion, roll over and accept this tactic (for like the millionth time) or we can speak up and do something about it. You can't just out right ban the Nid Codex because that removes the army from the game all together, but you can take a stand against further bolt on products GW has spewed out. If GW wanted to make Nids more appealing, they should have done a better job with the actual codex. Or if they intend to patch up all their lazy codex writing with formations... DA, BA, SoB, DE, etc. are still waiting on theirs too.

All, or none. GW has not right to pick and choose who to help and who to leave in the dust. They will continue to see DLC products as a viable strategy so long as we the community buy into it and feed this craze. If we stopped using them, they would have to actually... do a good job on codices, or follow up with FAQ's instead of expecting use to pay more money after market to increase the power of a given codex and simultaneously imbalance the game more by contradicting their points cost decisions in the actual codex in the first place.

If we really believe that Skyblight has no effect on the relative power of a codex then Skyblight would not be so prevalent and Nid players would not assert that it is so critical to their codex on a competitive level. Clearly the formation is better than the basic book... so it should cost more points. The formation contradicts the points values used in the base codex. Skyblight is perceived to be better, so the units in it that got better should cost more so as not to contradict the base codex point cost. This is why I suggest that if you want Nids to be good so badly just let the ally, then they can take the extra FMC's that make the formation so good, but are now paying the same costs for these units as in the codex. There is no contradiction/ discrepancy between cost and rules/abilities now. And better yet, no need to shell out $5 to pay GW to fix THEIR mistakes.

The issue then is that you end up punishing players for GWs practices. So Nids got a crappy book, and because GW wants money for the "fix" we won't allow it, so Nid players suffer through getting beat down at events. The assumption that GW will fix it differently if we don't buy in is naive. They won't they never have.

We don't need all or none, why should we limit the number of competitive codices? SO DA, Sob (among 6th ed books) are worse off than Nids, so it is more fair that Nids wallow with them, rather than compete with the Taus and Eldars of the world? That is your solution?

Skyblight is good, and it does make them relatively stronger....that is the point, it puts them on a more even playing field with the good books. The gargoyles are a large part of what makes the formation good (not the MCs really). There is no evidence that just self allying (in a world where everyone can) will make Nids better.

Maybe those units are overcosted in the Nid book, and as such the added rules make them playable?

You just seem hung up on "fair" and "points balanced" and the game is neither of these things.

Would I prefer that GW fixed codices for free? Sure.

Would I prefer that they wrote good codices to begin with? yes

Would It be nice if the community could fix all the broken things? Sure

But none of these are likely to happen...so I'd rather use the fixes we are given, encourage GW to make more of them, and actually have more books competing.

This thread has gone way off topic and I am honestly played out over it at this point. Neither one of use will convince/ change the other one so let us simply agree to disagree and move on.

I am tired of GW pulling us around. I don't think we the community has demanded that they create a game that is fair. Enough people selfishly buy into what ever rules are available to them in order to field a more powerful army without considering the implications these rules have on the community at large.

DLC style products and codex creep are the marketing that drives GW. We could force them to create better rules by avoiding the ones that directly contradict the things they have previously done, but the community will never have that kind of pull unless we unite and collectively see what they are doing as a problem.

I cannot single handedly stop GW from sowing chaos and contradiction throughout the rules set, but I can try and explain why I see what they are doing as bad in as basic and as rational a manor as I can. Many will disagree with me as is clear, from this thread, but I honestly believe that if many of the ideas I have suggested were widely held, the game would be more enjoyable for everyone because every army would have the most fair chance at success that is possible in a game with this much variability in it. Though let's not kid ourselves, the variability is why we play this game and not chess. I don't want chess, I just want consistency across the rules set, which to me is vital in order to consider the game worthy of true competitive play.

BTW Yes I don play in lots of tournaments, I enjoy challenging games between honest lists always look to knock off some of the flavor of the month power gamers who rely on this game for their self worth.

The issue is though that short of mass quitting the game we don't have that kind of pull. You would need an organized boycott of DLC rules, among all players for it to have any effect (presumably those rules cost them very little). Codices are imbalanced, and people won't stop buying codices for their armies...unless they quit. So you would need an organized quitting of the game...which won't happen.

as for not wanting chess, if I had the option around here to play mid level competitive chess, I would probably do it a bit....I like chess but rarely get the chance to play.

I would love the game to have every army with a fair chance at success, I just don't agree that your changes/views actually cause that to happen (I think it is the opposite to a large extent). I would love to see a competitive play ruling body, errata OP rules, or ban OP units/formations. But that is unlikely to happen.

What I am suggesting is that tournament play in particular not endorse formations or other add on rule sets. Unfettered 40k is great... just not when you are actually trying to give every army and every player an even footing for competition purposes. Right now there is a lot of picking and choosing about what rules will be included in large events. Some like LoW, some like them in small doses, other don't like them at all. Forgeworld, Stronghold, Dataslates, and Formations are all other examples of things that many events either allow, disallow, or modify. I would like to see the tournament scene revert back to strictly the codex as a rules source not because I see the codices as the most balanced thing out there, but because it is a baseline from which to fix the game.

With all the new rules sources coming out, some favor one army over another, some offer no help to most armies but greatly enhance one or 2. This is why Forgeworld was not widely accepted for a long time, it very clearly favors some armies while basically ignoring others. How will the community ever keep up? Would it not be easier to stick with the core codexes and then just make any comp changes the community wants to those books rather than trying to constantly churn out new rulings every time a new supplement, dataslate, or formation comes out? Rather then trying to tackle each and every new rules source, just bring everything back down to a codex baseline and make any changes need to that baseline. When a new codex is releases, let it play out for 6 months in a pre-competition testing phase, see what it can do, and then adjust the codex to match the rest of the game, then allow it into competitive play. (this is an extreme solution I know, and the practicality of it in questionable at best, but you must admit it would result in a better game if implemented)

Broadsides are OP.. ok change the points cost/ shots/ USR's on Broadsides etc.
Wave Serpents OP... make that Shield actually function only as a shield.

With the intent of bringing point value equality back into the game, these changes would at least be a proactive solution, rather than deciding to include or not include many various add-on rules onto an admittedly faulty baseline of core army books.

Strip 40k back down to it's core and make changes there before heaping un vetted DLC on top of it. Seams like a more lasting and meaningful solution then trying to construct a patchwork of inclusion/exclusion lists in an attempt to plug all the holes in an ultimately sinking ship.

The other option is to homogenize the game by playing strictly unbound which auto balances the game in the strictest sense, but realistically and logistically turn 40k into a wasteland where the people with the money to build the really abusive stuff will rule and the hobby aspect of building and playing your favorite army effectively dies.

While nice and utopian your suggestion will never happen...as there is no ruling body, and people don't agree on what needs fixing, or how to fix it.

So realistically we are better off allowing in GW rules that seem to give more codices a chance to compete, rather than limit to codices, and try to re-write the game.

 IK Viper wrote:
When we set down to play a game of 40k we must agree between ourselves that we are willing to at least pretend that 1 point of any codex is equal to one point of another codex. (this is how it should be, as we all agree)

No, I don't agree that we are willing to pretend that. It's obviously and demonstrably wrong and is the entire basis for your argument.
If anyone still wants to pretend that, they're insane.

I just bring the list I want to bring(within reason) and do my best to play to the lists strengths and minimize my opponents strengths.

The value of the unit can be mathmatically calculated, but it doesn't matter once the models hit the table for the most part.

Whats the point of shooting if I make it so you lose a shooting phase? Or use cover to limit your ability to shoot. How do you points cost that? How do you points cost me grabing 4 objective cards with one unit over the course of the game? Thats the problem with the one point arguement, that even something as simple as the battlefield will alter the value of units. Lots of forests? Kroot are better per point. Looks of difficult terrain? Move through cover units get better per point. Not a lot of enemy AP 2 shooting, armor saves got better. Lots of ignore cover? Aegis is worth less. Big units? Well that psyker buff is more valuable per point than it would be on a small unit or a unit with less shooting.

Points are just a guideline for how many models we can have in our army. Outside of that so many things modify their value that unless the models are SUPER similar then its barely useful comparison.

Additionally 1pt of an item might be worth more in another codex because for each army the value of an item might be more significant.

For example, giving a model with 6 wounds regenerate might be more valuable than giving a model with 2 wounds regenerate.

Or +1 inv save might be more valuable on a model that has a +3inv already instead of no save.

or a model with bs2 might pay less for an assault 2 weapon than other model with bs5