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.

A friend of mine and I were discussing ways to take the current ruleset for 7th edition and create a semblance of balance to the game. We started to talk about using highlander rules and removing all D weapons and superheavies/gargantuan models, as well as eliminating allies altogether. This would be a true highlander in that a single codex entry can only be taken once, and named models of generic models (ala the Swarmlord is a Hive Tyrant) count as the same entry. Although this would hinder some armies and create imbalance as well, but hopefully that imbalance wouldn't be as pronounced and give "weaker" armies a chance against the codexes considered strong.

As we talked about it, it became clearer that this might be a way to get closer to a balanced game. Dakka, what do you think? Is it a horrible idea or does it have some merit? I'm curious not only to hear people's opinions but also to hear your take on how this might be tweaked for improvement.

Cheers.

The main downside I can see is that it limits many fluffy and reasonable lists from almost every book. Most armies I'd want to field as a Guard player would be no bueno, yet otherwise perfectly sensible and far from broken.

The other downside is that it still doesn't do a good job at making a balanced game, with the drawback I pointed out.

The real solution is either for GW to get its act together (not likely to happen), or for a small, dedicated, and experienced group of players develop a whole set of FAQ/Erratas tweaking every codex and fixing rules issues in the BRB.

It'd be a lot of work, all just to make an expensive product worthwhile, and it wouldn't be guaranteed to be played everywhere, limiting its usefulness. It is the best solution for a truly balanced game without punishing players.

Alternatively alternatively, you could port 40k into another ruleset, like Bolt Action. Might be a project already underway for such a thing.

I agree with you, and that was one concession that some armies (such as Guard) that while not overpowered get hit unfairly hard because of the unit entries available to them. Chaos marines would be another that would probably be hit hard and be relatively uncompetitive.

And killing the fluff is an unfortunate downside that I think is more due to GW not caring about it in the first place with the current codex assemblage

GW and/or another entity "fixing" 40k is a discussion that has been thrown about quite a bit on here that I won't belabor except to say, yes. I totally agree with you!

Problem with Highlander is it doesn't fix things like Centstars and giving Tzeentch Daemons 2+ re-rollable Invulnerable saves.

Highlander screws armies like sisters and doesn't really hurt armies like eldar very much at all. Comp systems are usually a mess. They look at units in a vacuum and ignore the fact that some units only become broken when combined with other stuff. Grav cents aren't that hard to deal with. 24" range, slow, no overwatch, terrible in assault, no invuln save. Add tiggy/sevrin/draigo (pick any 2) and they become fairly broken. Same with screamers. I mean, it can't come out any worse than the rules as written, I just don't think it will be enough of an improvement to be worth taking most of the flavor out of some armies.

Unfortunately it knocks the one leg some weaker books are standing on out from under them.

If everyone was nearly on the same level of balance internally it would do a great job of mitigating some of the external balance issues.

That would create a lot of new problems. Many new problems arise as codices are certainly not equal, and the one Max choice really is tough for some armies.

Could do each troop is a 0-1 selection until one of each choice is filled. Could impose the same restriction on other slots, gives codices with very limited choices some love. I'm not sold on these Highlander limits.

I don't believe allies need to be removed completely, just downgrade Battle Brothers to Allies of Convenience. This eliminates stealing Drop Pods, Cent Star, WWP Wraith etc.

I agree SHS and GCs should not be allowed. Strength D should be downgraded to the old Distort Profiles.

You could limit Flyers and FMCs to a max of 1 per full 750pts or 500pts.

Might as well limit 2+/++ rerollable to 2+/4+.

Will need to remove Decurian as an option. Probably the Eldar aspect one as well. Or some general limitations on formations etc. Maybe just CAD+AD with some leeway for minidexes.

1/2 or 1/3 Scatter bike Heavy Weapons. This is probably the only direct unit nerf, though the Highlander rules makes it a nonissue.

Summoning will need some kind of limit, or Warp Charges in general.

Invisibility needs to be BS1/5+CC.

Maybe a 0-1 Unique or Special character per full 1000pts.

Those are just off the top of my head and should have the effect you are looking for by removing and limiting the worst offenders. I know I'd rather be playing with these rules in place. A very new and different Meta would emerge with these in place. Balance problems will still exist, especially where poor internal and external balance exist, but problematic synergy combinations should be mostly eliminated. I thing Farsight Bomb would make a horrid comeback, barring Hihlander restrictions for Commanders.

At least that's my initial thoughts.

Guard is like hard mode without demons and csm and daemons (should be in the came book) should be able to ally. The problem also comes in with strong books with a strong mono-build. Eldar jetbikes come to mind (they can buff other forces by allying in but they don't need anything on their own.

Limiting to 1 per entry is just not a good plan. BA have two troop choices. As do GK, and I'm sure at least some other armies are similarly low.

It also goes beyond harming some armies, like Guard, and outright makes them unusable.

I think it's a horrible idea that is punitive to several codexes and supplements. I think at that point (and I'm being serious, not facetious) it would be more efficient, and probably more fun for you, to play an older edition, and just restrict codexes to the ones available during that edition's run.

I'd totally play that. A chance to to 5th Ed codex DEA again? That'd be hot!

Rules rework would be more effective. It's also faster. The main problem is human psychology itself. "Why would i use alternative rules, albeit ballanced and free, if i've payed 40$ for official ones?".

Another huge problem is that you still need to find this dedicated group of experienced players. Everyone has different POV on the matter. For example, i'm in process of reworking an ork dex - thought i'd add a few tweaks and that's it, but...it came out to be so many changes to make stuff more ballanced that it's a whole new dex and not just a few faq lines. On the other hand, i was aiming to make EVERYTHING useful. And i mean every little piece of gear like a wrekking ball, grabbing klaw, extra armor, kopta bommz, etc. Didn't stop with just unit ballance issues. Can check it out - still somewhere around the 1-st page in proposed rules. You'll find out that everyone wants something different and that it's close to impossible to fully satisfy everyone.

Besides, playtesting is also an issue. 40k crowd is quite conservative. Many people would rather stick to current official poorly written rules than accept self-made changes.

So an eldar player would take a max unit jetbikes, a max unit of DireAvengers in a serpent,one WK ,one unit of hawks, fire dragons and maybe reapers. And then probably the seer formation.

So my Sisters army would take 1 Saint Celestine, and 1 Battle Sisters squad, and.....

Ah, that's not a legal army.

The idea has some merit, but most army's aren't overpowered because they spam one type of unit, but that they have combinations. Daemons, and SM Centurions rely on death stars. Against the Eldar it just forces diversity, but they still have some of the best units, even in singleton.

To fix the game, it really needs a rewrite.

My LGS already went down that road. It didn't fix the game but broke it in a plethora of new, interesting ways. Thing is, the guys that pushed that horrible comped system became way too fond of the state of things their monster had created (one that, unsurprisingly, benefitted their own armies) and refused to let go even when empyrical evidence showed that their half-assed attempt to best GW had produced an unplayable mess that punished players for no good reasons. Drama ensued, and thus the miracle cure for all of 40k's problems managed not only to wreck the game but the local community as well.

I don't think a rewrite will mend the damage at this point. As I've said a thousand times before, there's nothing wrong with the base rules, not even fliers, formations or superheavies - It's the codices that bring the rot. There seems to be something wrong in GW's codex-writing workflow that ends up producing books that somehow don't feel part of an integrated whole - It's amazing we got codex: Skitarii one week and the atrocity that is Eldar Craftworlds the next.

Another way is a game type my FLGS is trying and it is wild deuces where you have to bring double of everything you have, so if you want 1 cad you need 2 and stops certain death stars (such as cent star), since you cannot bring 2 draigos.

The only comp system that makes any sense is the one that reassigns point values to every unit and every weapon in the game. Ie, a different game.

Martel732 wrote:
The only comp system that makes any sense is the one that reassigns point values to every unit and every weapon in the game. Ie, a different game.

I don't know if something that drastic is needed. Changing the points costs on a few units in each codex and removing/fixing most broken things,me specially combinations, would too a very long way.

I think this could be accomplished with a short document with errata for each army and most of the proposed rules I offered above. It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd go a long way towards helping.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
So my Sisters army would take 1 Saint Celestine, and 1 Battle Sisters squad, and.....

Ah, that's not a legal army.

Yeah, rules that completely invalidate our army, balance! But hey, I have a friend starting a Legion of the Damned army, he is so going to love this ! So you get to pick one unit and then… oh, nothing else EVAR. Same for Inquisition : one Inquisitor, one retinue, and done.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have a friend starting a Legion of the Damned army

Your friend likes losing automatically on the first turn?

The problem is that blanket approaches don't really work and in fact make it even worse fro some armies.

This is now coupled with the fact that the Eldar now have an entire Codex with good to OP units compared to most who have few rubbish, some ok and some good.

To get good balance you really have to go through each Codex and sort out the problems - if you can get agreement on what actually are the problems.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
As I've said a thousand times before, there's nothing wrong with the base rules, not even fliers, formations or superheavies

Actually, there is still quite a bit wrong with the base rules. Sure, codices may be some of the worst offenders, but the core rules have plenty of issues that directly affect gameplay and balance. Most of the problems with the core rules is on the wording or ambiguity side of the house, which is very important to avoid unnecessary RAW/RAI arguments at the table. On top of that, the base rules defines things like vehicles vs. MCs, which then only gets worse at the codex level. The current disparity between vehicles and MCs isn't primarily a codex issue but a core rules issue; fix vehicles by bringing them more inline with MCs and you automatically buff every army that relies on vehicles rather than MCs.

The whole thing is interconnected. USRs are another core rules issue that could be cleaned up in order to bring many codices more inline. When the core rules are clean, clear, and ensure that basic unit types (infantry, MCs, vehicles, bikes, cavalry, so on) are all balanced at the most basic level, then the codices start out on the same foot and can be tweaked from there.

I'll also add in my mandatory statement that I believe super heavies have no reason to exist in base 40k, and therefore is a core rules problem. Same goes for fliers really, but that's more of an immersion and implementation issue for me.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
As I've said a thousand times before, there's nothing wrong with the base rules, not even fliers, formations or superheavies

Actually, there is still quite a bit wrong with the base rules. Sure, codices may be some of the worst offenders, but the core rules have plenty of issues that directly affect gameplay and balance. Most of the problems with the core rules is on the wording or ambiguity side of the house, which is very important to avoid unnecessary RAW/RAI arguments at the table. On top of that, the base rules defines things like vehicles vs. MCs, which then only gets worse at the codex level. The current disparity between vehicles and MCs isn't primarily a codex issue but a core rules issue; fix vehicles by bringing them more inline with MCs and you automatically buff every army that relies on vehicles rather than MCs.

The whole thing is interconnected. USRs are another core rules issue that could be cleaned up in order to bring many codices more inline. When the core rules are clean, clear, and ensure that basic unit types (infantry, MCs, vehicles, bikes, cavalry, so on) are all balanced at the most basic level, then the codices start out on the same foot and can be tweaked from there.

I'll also add in my mandatory statement that I believe super heavies have no reason to exist in base 40k, and therefore is a core rules problem. Same goes for fliers really, but that's more of an immersion and implementation issue for me.

I think unit types as they are currently defined could be balanced at the codex level quite well, it is that codices didn't change enough as the editions and rules changes which has given major buffs to codices between editions, which are not being corrected as they go.

There are definitely core rules issues, RAW/RAI, Invisibility, Summoning, SH/GCs, Battle Brothers, but the rest of the ruleset could be balanced at the codex level by points cost, but it simply is not.

I am so tempted to start a Balance errata for each dex, it'd be a project, but unfortunately one no one would embrace or ever use... It really wouldn't take much to adjust a handful of problematic core rules, and make codex level errata changes that buff the units that really need it and nerf the ones who don't. Most could be done through points costs alone.

I means how hard is it errata a EJB to have a 4+ Armor Save, or the Scatter Laser to have S5, or for Dreadnoughts to have a 4th HP, etc. I really want to do this, and I think balance could be improved drastically, but no one would embrace it unfortunately.

But the problem is not just codex. the core rules are just as bad. The whole mealstrom mission mechanic doesn't work unless one house rule it. And even if one does it still promotes armies that have fast durable or cheap msu units. Or MC standing one milimeter in terrain to get +4cover, when tank can't.

All the other stuff like invisibilty cast on titans or deathstars is just a cherry on top. One could play without it and 7th would still be bad as far as balance goes.

 Zagman wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
As I've said a thousand times before, there's nothing wrong with the base rules, not even fliers, formations or superheavies

Actually, there is still quite a bit wrong with the base rules. Sure, codices may be some of the worst offenders, but the core rules have plenty of issues that directly affect gameplay and balance. Most of the problems with the core rules is on the wording or ambiguity side of the house, which is very important to avoid unnecessary RAW/RAI arguments at the table. On top of that, the base rules defines things like vehicles vs. MCs, which then only gets worse at the codex level. The current disparity between vehicles and MCs isn't primarily a codex issue but a core rules issue; fix vehicles by bringing them more inline with MCs and you automatically buff every army that relies on vehicles rather than MCs.

The whole thing is interconnected. USRs are another core rules issue that could be cleaned up in order to bring many codices more inline. When the core rules are clean, clear, and ensure that basic unit types (infantry, MCs, vehicles, bikes, cavalry, so on) are all balanced at the most basic level, then the codices start out on the same foot and can be tweaked from there.

I'll also add in my mandatory statement that I believe super heavies have no reason to exist in base 40k, and therefore is a core rules problem. Same goes for fliers really, but that's more of an immersion and implementation issue for me.

I think unit types as they are currently defined could be balanced at the codex level quite well, it is that codices didn't change enough as the editions and rules changes which has given major buffs to codices between editions, which are not being corrected as they go.

There are definitely core rules issues, RAW/RAI, Invisibility, Summoning, SH/GCs, Battle Brothers, but the rest of the ruleset could be balanced at the codex level by points cost, but it simply is not.

I am so tempted to start a Balance errata for each dex, it'd be a project, but unfortunately one no one would embrace or ever use... It really wouldn't take much to adjust a handful of problematic core rules, and make codex level errata changes that buff the units that really need it and nerf the ones who don't. Most could be done through points costs alone.

I means how hard is it errata a EJB to have a 4+ Armor Save, or the Scatter Laser to have S5, or for Dreadnoughts to have a 4th HP, etc. I really want to do this, and I think balance could be improved drastically, but no one would embrace it unfortunately.

Agreed - we have done a small version of this and it works well for our games but people tend to want to play the RAW for better or worse....

 Zagman wrote:

I think unit types as they are currently defined could be balanced at the codex level quite well, it is that codices didn't change enough as the editions and rules changes which has given major buffs to codices between editions, which are not being corrected as they go.

There are definitely core rules issues, RAW/RAI, Invisibility, Summoning, SH/GCs, Battle Brothers, but the rest of the ruleset could be balanced at the codex level by points cost, but it simply is not.

Most of the game could be balanced at the codex level, but the question would then be why? The vehicle/MC gap is a great example of this. You could balance dreadnoughts and the likes of dreadknights or riptides with point adjustments and wargear changes, but you could also bring the base unit types closer in general balance as well. If they made vehicles roughly as viable as MCs in terms of durability/versatility, then balancing the likes of dreads and riptides becomes so much simpler, easier, and comparable.

It's like Soul Blaze. If Soul Blaze, or other mostly useless USRs, were buffed, many units that have them by default would automatically become better without necessarily needing a change in wargear, statline, or points value.

I guess I'm really just debating the method of balance, but if a game is a house, then you want a strong foundation to build all the rooms in.

I am so tempted to start a Balance errata for each dex, it'd be a project, but unfortunately one no one would embrace or ever use... It really wouldn't take much to adjust a handful of problematic core rules, and make codex level errata changes that buff the units that really need it and nerf the ones who don't. Most could be done through points costs alone.

I means how hard is it errata a EJB to have a 4+ Armor Save, or the Scatter Laser to have S5, or for Dreadnoughts to have a 4th HP, etc. I really want to do this, and I think balance could be improved drastically, but no one would embrace it unfortunately.

Major tournament organizers or website admins could have enough influence to make an unofficial FAQ/Errata that would be used by many people. Outside of that, yeah, it'd be hard to gain any sort of widespread acceptance. It would be an exercise in masochism really, trying to un feth two dozen codices, supplements, and dataslates on top of the core book all for free.

 Blacksails wrote:


Major tournament organizers or website admins could have enough influence to make an unofficial FAQ/Errata that would be used by many people. Outside of that, yeah, it'd be hard to gain any sort of widespread acceptance. It would be an exercise in masochism really, trying to un feth two dozen codices, supplements, and dataslates on top of the core book all for free.

Not to mention that, judging by GWs release schedule, by the time you finished half the codices would probably be out of date, there'd be another 4 dozen dataslates released and a whole new edition of the basic rules

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not to mention that, judging by GWs release schedule, by the time you finished, half the codices would probably be out of date, there'd be another 4 dozen dataslates released and a whole new edition of the basic rules

Yeah, no kidding.

Just thinking about undertaking such a task makes me tired.

Wow, thanks everyone for the comments! Definitely a lot of things I hadn't considered (obviously). I agree most I think with the idea that Blacksails first touched on which is that the base rules create a foundation of imbalance and the codexes expand upon that imbalance to skew it even further. I don't play Sisters or GK and as such I apologize to players of those armies for not being more knowledgeable.

From what Agent_Tremolo said, I can certainly see folks trying to do the biggest baddest combos which would in turn recapitulate the vicious cycle that we're in now with certain armies/builds being far superior.

Sigh, a ground up rewrite of all the rules (base and codex/supplements/etc.) sounds exhausting, albeit necessary.

As another poster pointed out, it is quite strange the wildly polarized codexes that come out in such close succession. It almost leads one to believe that each is being written in a vacuum!

Cheers to all for your insight!

 djm55 wrote:
It almost leads one to believe that each is being written in a vacuum!

Indeed.

Several other game companies update all their army books simultaneously with any new game editions to ensure every codex is edition compatible and external balance is reasonable. Then they release new additions to each faction throughout the year in either a rotating cycle or by adding a unit to each book at the same time.

In my opinion, a much better system. But I am neither a game designer nor businessologist.

Highlander wouldn't achieve balance. It would stop spam as well as screw codices with few viable options. It wouldn't fix anything that didn't require duplicates.

Highlander would be a good idea for a low point jank format though.