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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
All borderline OP boosts belong in Formations but they do work there. Say you take an entire Tank squadron of one type, you get the corresponding special rule for it's main gun.

But that's the point - you shouldn't need a formation to make a unit usable. In the same way that you shouldn't need a SC upgrade to make it usable.

 vipoid wrote:
But that's the point - you shouldn't need a formation to make a unit usable. In the same way that you shouldn't need a SC upgrade to make it usable.

Usable, yes. But if 40k is theoretically balanced at points, it isn't balanced once you are including formation special rules (assuming that formations don't lack significant drawbacks).

That's something you need to take into account when you're discussing external balance.

The game almost never is balanced at points, even theoretically. If you have bubble wrapim troops units, heavy support, buffing support units like CCS and psykers, and heavy MC or Lords of War, then there is a theoretical maximization where there are x% of one, y and a percents of the others. Theoretically it would always be a waste of points to take a third or fourth librarian, or to take an excessive ratio of tanks to bubble wrap.

The other ratio that is important is the points cost of the formation vs. the points level of the game. Some units are too powerful for small games, and not powerful enough for very large games.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Usable, yes. But if 40k is theoretically balanced at points, it isn't balanced once you are including formation special rules (assuming that formations don't lack significant drawbacks).

This is the flaw with just about every formation to date.

The solution isn't making units garbage without specific formations.

The solution is either modifying formations so that they cost extra (to take account of the benefits they offer), or simply removing formations altogether. The game got along fine without them in the past.

pelicaniforce wrote:
The game almost never is balanced at points, even theoretically.

True enough. Keep in mind even chess isn't balanced due to first turn advantage.

We don't need perfect balance. We just need to ensure it's close enough that everyone still feels like they have a decent chance, and ends up having a good time.

Yoyoyo wrote:

We don't need perfect balance. We just need to ensure it's close enough that everyone still feels like they have a decent chance, and ends up having a good time.

I only wish GW would see it that way...

 Selym wrote:
IG Ordnance weapons should have a Sqn rule that has them remove any terrain they hit,

and then resolve damage to the unit (which probably means stripping their cover saves).

In 2E, that would be Anti-Plant.

IG have weapons that ignore cover. Or low AP where cover doesn't matter. Or enough shots that something gets thorough anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
But that's the point - you shouldn't need a formation to make a unit usable.

Even in Eldar, nobody would take Dire Avengers if not for their super-special Formation.

GW does see it that way, but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams. Writers, sculptors, production, sales and marketing, whatever. They don't react to player discontent at the bottom, which is why you have one codex getting dogpiled for years or problem units not getting corrections for way too long (Serpent Shield, etc). I imagine GW is more interested in efficently pushing new content than chasing their tail to support players whose units are getting dated. It's not good for competive gamers with an older codex, but we end up abusing each other by refusing to houserule obvious issues. Not saying it's right, it's just how it is.

 vipoid wrote:
The solution is either modifying formations so that they cost extra (to take account of the benefits they offer), or simply removing formations altogether. The game got along fine without them in the past.

Plenty of people enjoy them, even if you don't. There's nothing stopping you from playing alt format games like CAD only, or even skirmish formats with no superheavies and limited non-troop choices. That's my preference, incidentally. Now look. Most "competitive" players slavishly take their cues from GT's, who their own motivatons. They haven't banned formations but have banned Unbound. Some factions have formations, some don't. Well, that's why there are problems. There's nothing stopping anyone from playing Unbound either in their local games, but somehow this never seemed to become a big issue because TOs shot it down immediately. Know what I mean?

Regarding the Punisher, it's anti-infantry that mostly relies on weight of fire to grind through saves. Heavy 20, S5 AP-. Asking for Rending so it can hull out AV or kill MCs strikes me as stepping on the toes of the other Leman Russ variants. I don't know if that's good internal balance and it's something you need to look at statistically, It also smacks me as an ingrained habit from trying to powergame, I've seen game reports where Punisher Pask put 5HP on an Imperial Knight in one turn. No wonder IG players want Rending.

So, did you do the math, or do you just want lots of mini-Pasks running around the table? Not saying it's bad. In fact maybe a player wants to play lots of Punishers. Why punish them? But you should be looking at what's known as "second order effects", rather than just slinging around the word useless. Less hyperbole, more substance.

If balancing was easy, GW could do it...

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why remove Pask?

too ofset the fact that they can now guide an artillery shell right on top of you EVERY DAMN TIME, as well as use heavy weapons teams to lock your entire army down and keep them moving around at a snails pace if they arent inside the comfort of a nice beefy troop transport. basically what im saying is that imperial guard need to pay some kind of tax to get really good rules especially if they come in the form of formations because their the army that should do the best when marrying formations with conventional lists. and pask has for a long time been a crutch for their army much in the same way other gimmicks were for other forces. dark angels lost their sacred standards of gimmick but they picked up being a very good army with their formations and ravenwing improvements. codex marines had their weak links black templars and ravenguard even further shoved down into the mud but in exchange all their other chapter tactics are doing better than anything in recent memory (especially crimson fists if you ask me) and things will be no different.

the imperial guard will soon find out that power has a price and they will be paying for it .. again, just like last time their c odex was overhauled.

and i laugh at all those fools who keep asking to have people like marbo brought back, your going to be lucky if even one of those cut names gets mentioned at all in the codex, and at best hes going to have a paragraph of info about him. just ask brother bethor who has gone from a named character model, to a generic model, to not even being mentioned at all in the base codex.

We pay 400 points for BS4 and Rending. I think we well pay for what power we get.

On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.

 ionusx wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Why remove Pask?

too ofset the fact that they can now guide an artillery shell right on top of you EVERY DAMN TIME, as well as use heavy weapons teams to lock your entire army down

Keep in mind that pinning is useless against half the armies in the game, and only minimally useful against most of the rest.

and pask has for a long time been a crutch for their army much in the same way other gimmicks were for other forces

He's an in-production character that made it through the last round of cuts, he's probably not going anywhere at this point. He's also nowhere near the gimmick that other armies have, and is useful largely in only a single configuration, and only marginally good at that, and even then you're talking a ~400pt unit typically that isn't bringing anywhere near what most 400pt gimmicks are bringing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.

100% agree.

Personally I find this kind of discussion useful for brainstorming homebrews and getting a feel for what people like to encounter or play. I'm at the point where I have little left to add, as well. But yeah, GW has their own ideas.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 Vaktathi wrote:
On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.

You are far too pessimistic.

The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat

Now, which Doctrines get added, and how they're bundled, is hard to say, but I'd expect 4 or 5 flavors of IG, wrapped under Cadia, Catachan, FW's DKoK and 2-3 other "top-selling" flavors.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.

You are far too pessimistic.

The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles Unless they do what they did in the SM 'dex, which was to make a SC a LoW, rather than the available SH models. My bet is Creed.
2. restore Doctrines Probably. May be "Regimental Tactics" for Cadia, Catachan, Steel Legion etc.
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation Yay, free gak!
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward Probably 4ppm guardsmen, as GW wonders why people have stopped buying those fugly-ass stumpy-troopers.
5. simplify individual units somewhat Taking a leaf out of the Emperor's Champion, I suspect we'd see something like Pask having fewer buffs to give out, but using them all at once, and making the Deathstrike usable in a game.

Now, which Doctrines get added, and how they're bundled, is hard to say, but I'd expect 4 or 5 flavors of IG, wrapped under Cadia, Catachan, FW's DKoK and 2-3 other "top-selling" flavors.

Yoyoyo wrote:
GW does see it that way

No they don't.

GW couldn't care less about the rules. As far as they're concerned, the models are all that matter. And, remember, this is the company that thinks the hobby is 'buying our stuff'.

Yoyoyo wrote:
but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams.

This doesn't explain why there is horrendous internal balance.

Yoyoyo wrote:
GW does see it that way, but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams. Writers, sculptors, production, sales and marketing, whatever. They don't react to player discontent at the bottom, which is why you have one codex getting dogpiled for years or problem units not getting corrections for way too long (Serpent Shield, etc). I imagine GW is more interested in efficently pushing new content than chasing their tail to support players whose units are getting dated. It's not good for competive gamers with an older codex, but we end up abusing each other by refusing to houserule obvious issues. Not saying it's right, it's just how it is.

Regarding the Punisher, it's anti-infantry that mostly relies on weight of fire to grind through saves. Heavy 20, S5 AP-. Asking for Rending so it can hull out AV or kill MCs strikes me as stepping on the toes of the other Leman Russ variants. I don't know if that's good internal balance and it's something you need to look at statistically, It also smacks me as an ingrained habit from trying to powergame, I've seen game reports where Punisher Pask put 5HP on an Imperial Knight in one turn. No wonder IG players want Rending.

Something to bear in mind - the Pask Punisher has BS4, preferred enemy (from Warlord Trait), and rerolls failed armour penetration rolls.

A regular punisher is BS3 (so, it's already missing with half of its shots), and has none of the above. Even with 20 shots, it averages fewer than 2 rends.

The problem is, without Rending, it just doesn't have any useful role. It's the same reason you don't see people running to mass Heavy Bolters - S5 simply isn't useful, compared to other heavy weapons. it lacks the strength to hurt most vehicles, and lacks the AP (or strength) to be a threat to MCs. About the only thing it can hope to do is kill infantry, but it sucks even at that. 20 S5 shots amounts to 2 dead marines. Terrifying.

Yoyoyo wrote:
GW does see it that way, but they plan releases top-down over a long schedule to coordinate their different teams. Writers, sculptors, production, sales and marketing, whatever. They don't react to player discontent at the bottom, which is why you have one codex getting dogpiled for years or problem units not getting corrections for way too long (Serpent Shield, etc). I imagine GW is more interested in efficently pushing new content than chasing their tail to support players whose units are getting dated. It's not good for competive gamers with an older codex, but we end up abusing each other by refusing to houserule obvious issues. Not saying it's right, it's just how it is.

So, did you do the math, or do you just want lots of mini-Pasks running around the table? Not saying it's bad. In fact maybe a player wants to play lots of Punishers. Why punish them? But you should be looking at what's known as "second order effects", rather than just slinging around the word useless. Less hyperbole, more substance.

So, is your meta dominated by non-pask punishers or something? You seem to have really elevated ideas about what they can do without pask.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Plenty of people enjoy them, even if you don't.

Please don't start on the ad hominem fallacies - this is about game balance, not personal taste.

I mean, I'm sure plenty of Eldar players enjoy Wraithknights and Scatterbkes, and also enjoyed the broken-as-hell WS in 6th. Should we not fix anything that's overpowered just because some people enjoy OP stuff?

Those saying IG are going to get a Special Character as Lord of War (Yarrick, presumably), what SM Superheavies does GW currently sell in plastic?

Knights have Knights
Eldar have the Wraithknight
Orks have the Stompa
Guard have the Baneblade

Is GW currently foregoing additional sales of Space Marine Superheavies on the shelves at their stores?

Personally, i actually hope Yarrick doesn't become a LoW.

I don't see how yarrik can be justified as a low choice. Compared to other ones he would not be worth it, unless the low choice was yarrick and his pimpmobile The Fortress of Arrogance.

 HANZERtank wrote:
I don't see how yarrik can be justified as a low choice. Compared to other ones he would not be worth it

When you say 'others', do you mean other IG LoW choices, or the LoW choices of other races?

If the latter, then compared to Ghazghkull and the Stormlord, I think he'd fit right in.

 vipoid wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
I don't see how yarrik can be justified as a low choice. Compared to other ones he would not be worth it

When you say 'others', do you mean other IG LoW choices, or the LoW choices of other races?

If the latter, then compared to Ghazghkull and the Stormlord, I think he'd fit right in.

I think he just doesn't carry an appropriate price tag and use on the battlefield. Other LoW choices are combat mosters or big shooty unkilly things. He doesn't really have a good save or remarkable traits. That's just my view on him though, I've never got good results out of him.

 HANZERtank wrote:

I think he just doesn't carry an appropriate price tag and use on the battlefield. Other LoW choices are combat mosters or big shooty unkilly things. He doesn't really have a good save or remarkable traits. That's just my view on him though, I've never got good results out of him.

I know what you mean.

Honestly, Yarrick feels like a weird case for me - in that it seems like he should be good, but he just doesn't seem to do much on the table. He's a tooled-up Lord Commissar with extra survivability and the powers of a CCS, but it just doesn't seem to pan out.

But then, perhaps it's because his abilities don't really gel that well (not to mention being rather outclassed these days). I mean, let's go through what he brings:
- Senior Orders (pretty nice)
- Ld buffs
- Draconian Discipline Warlord Trait. See, this is the first issue for me. His other traits seem to want him in a blob squad, but this trait seems more useful with multiple small squads of veterans and such.
- Power Fist So, he can do some damage in melee... but if he's doing that then he can't use those all-important Orders.
- Survivability (T4, 4++, EW, Iron Will) Seems good in theory, but starts to break down in practice. T4 iwill rarely see use, and EW makes it irrelevant for ID purposes. I guess you might get to use his T4 in a challenge, but there aren't many things you'd want to be accepting challenges with. And, whilst a 4++ is decent by IG standards, it's nothing special. Moreover, the lack of any armour save means you can't use him to soak wounds. Worse still, you don't know whether his resurrection will succeed until it's already too late.
- Shooting. There may have been a time when a storm bolter plus a S3 AP3 shot at 6" was impressive. That time is long gone.

 vipoid wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:

I think he just doesn't carry an appropriate price tag and use on the battlefield. Other LoW choices are combat mosters or big shooty unkilly things. He doesn't really have a good save or remarkable traits. That's just my view on him though, I've never got good results out of him.

I know what you mean.

Honestly, Yarrick feels like a weird case for me - in that it seems like he should be good, but he just doesn't seem to do much on the table. He's a tooled-up Lord Commissar with extra survivability and the powers of a CCS, but it just doesn't seem to pan out. Give back the stubborn bubble as well.

But then, perhaps it's because his abilities don't really gel that well (not to mention being rather outclassed these days). I mean, let's go through what he brings:
- Senior Orders (pretty nice)
- Ld buffs
- Draconian Discipline Warlord Trait. See, this is the first issue for me. His other traits seem to want him in a blob squad, but this trait seems more useful with multiple small squads of veterans and such.
- Power Fist So, he can do some damage in melee... but if he's doing that then he can't use those all-important Orders.
- Survivability (T4, 4++, EW, Iron Will) Seems good in theory, but starts to break down in practice. T4 iwill rarely see use, and EW makes it irrelevant for ID purposes. I guess you might get to use his T4 in a challenge, but there aren't many things you'd want to be accepting challenges with. And, whilst a 4++ is decent by IG standards, it's nothing special. Moreover, the lack of any armour save means you can't use him to soak wounds. Worse still, you don't know whether his resurrection will succeed until it's already too late.
- Shooting. There may have been a time when a storm bolter plus a S3 AP3 shot at 6" was impressive. That time is long gone.

Yeah, he really should either just be a support character or a CC one, he can't really dual-task both of them. Anyway, here are some ideas I had for tweaks to prexsisting units, as well as some homebrewed stuff I made. Unlikely that any of this will ever see anything remotely similar in the next codex, but one can hope.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360/631650.page#8075434

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360/631650.page#8067397

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/330/631650.page#7992189

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/330/631650.page#8015344

Besides that, I think everybody has already gone over what most people think is the best things that need to be changed for the codex, but a couple of other things I'd like to see to the game overall.
-We become the only faction with vehicle squadrons again. This is something that should have remained ours anyway, and who cares how many Leman Russes we can put down anyway when D-weapons, Gauss, Grav, Haywire, etc. can make them disapear in the blink of an eye.
-Either revert to fifth edition damage tables, or make it so glances roll on a table instead of stripping HP. Give Orks some decent AT weapons that they can spam so this doesn't hurt them as much.
-Give the game so form of reaction fire mechanic so that some games don't devolve into whoever goes frst winning.
-Cover modifies to-hit instead of giving a save.
-AP modifies armor save instead of ignoring all of X and above. Makes more sense this way.

Most of this is just ranting at the game in general, but a lot of this would actually benefeit us.

Just one point - wouldn't changing cover to a to-hit modifier cripple us?

I disagree vehemently that Guard should be the only faction with vehicle squadrons. It's not something that requires a doctrinal shift for any other army to say "Guys, let's run more than one tank and see what happens!".

I can totally get behind vehicle platoons in the Guard book though. You could even make them an auxiliary choice if the book is decurionized.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I disagree vehemently that Guard should be the only faction with vehicle squadrons. It's not something that requires a doctrinal shift for any other army to say "Guys, let's run more than one tank and see what happens!".

I can totally get behind vehicle platoons in the Guard book though. You could even make them an auxiliary choice if the book is decurionized.

Ok, this instead of what I said.

 vipoid wrote:
Just one point - wouldn't changing cover to a to-hit modifier cripple us?

Hmm, depends on the BS of the opponent. 6's would aut-hit, so agaisnt low BS enemies like Orks, and .....Orks, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Against armies like SM let's say 4+ cover becomes a -2 to-hit modifier. Instead of hitting on 3's there now hitting on 5s, so rapid firing Bolter Tactical squad would now hit with 7, wound with 5, lose 5 models. With old cover save, it would be 14 hits, 9 wounds, save agaisnt 4-5 of them, take 4-5 wounds. However agaisnt blast weapons I see your point, it's just a pet peeve of mine for how cover works.

I was also thinking of our own shooting. With BS3, it won't take much cover before we;re missing with 5/6 shots. And, unlike Orks, we don't even have good melee to compensate.

 vipoid wrote:
I was also thinking of our own shooting. With BS3, it won't take much cover before we;re missing with 5/6 shots. And, unlike Orks, we don't even have good melee to compensate.

Oh, right . AP modifying armor would be nice however, that would actually help us out, and it makes sense that a Krak Missile would have some affect on Termnator Armor, or that an Autocannon would have some penetration effect versus SM.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
On a more "meta" note, looking at what GW is bringing to the table these days, I have a feeling we're going to see some major changes to GW's lineup such that this may become something of a moot point in the relatively near future. I don't think the next IG codex is going to look like anything anyone really wants, GW has been rather consistent in bringing stuff to the table that nobody expected, or really asked for, over the last couple of years, and I think that's only going to accelerate. If we're just looking at ways to make the current IG codex viable, I think we've beaten those to death, and I made my suggestions way back on page 3. But I think ultimately we're going to see something very different from what many of us envisioned.

You are far too pessimistic.

It's not about pessimism, it's just acknowledgement of reality. GW has consistently been delivering changes that generally go a different direction from what most people really were looking for, particularly during the last 8 or 9 months or so. Look through older threads about what people want out of new codex books for say, Eldar or Necrons, and you'll see many or most of those changes never happened, something altogether different was done, along with many things nobody talked about (e.g. making Wraiths T5, making Distort weapons Destroyer).

The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat

This is assuming that GW does not change design philosophies yet again, as they have done on just about a yearly basis for the last few years. Doctrines I think are also highly suspect, as GW no longer seems interested in such differentiations outside of Space Marines. *IF* GW's design philosophy remains the same, most of the above will probably hold true in some form or fashion, but that's a big *if*.

My point largely was that, with GW's track record, whatever they do may likely be significantly different from what we were otherwise expecting or hoping for. Remember, people expected Necrons to get the treatment that IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE got, and things went haywire from there.

 Vaktathi wrote:

The next IG Codex will go in the direction of the recent SM and Eldar Codices:
1. add Superheavy Baneblade family of vehicles
2. restore Doctrines
3. add Formations with multi-Platoon-based super-formation
4. re-tweak points cost generally downward
5. simplify individual units somewhat

This is assuming that GW does not change design philosophies yet again, as they have done on just about a yearly basis for the last few years. Doctrines I think are also highly suspect, as GW no longer seems interested in such differentiations outside of Space Marines. *IF* GW's design philosophy remains the same, most of the above will probably hold true in some form or fashion, but that's a big *if*.

My point largely was that, with GW's track record, whatever they do may likely be significantly different from what we were otherwise expecting or hoping for. Remember, people expected Necrons to get the treatment that IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE got, and things went haywire from there.

Here's a question, do you think if they had stuck with the same design principle as IG, DW, BA, GK, Orks, and DE, the game would appear to be a lot more balanced than it is now?

I know you weren't asking me, but if they'd continued that design philosophy, I think the books would be better balanced against one another.

However, I believe the internal balance would have been much, much worse, and that the books would have been really dull.