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.

I realize tournament / competitive 40K needs "official" rulings etc etc... I'm not concerned with that. The core rules of 40K are not without flaws but they are more-or-less ok (see 30K) - the codex however are entirely out of balance.

Changing individual rules/exemptions/exceptions/points per unit or codex is just too much and too complicated. What if the current point system, and a tax or bonus %-percentage of points, was used to more simply balance out the codex. So for example, a 10% bonus would mean any 1000pt list would add 100 points or an 1850pt list would add 185 points etc...

Here is a rough first example with the newest Codex Space Marines being the marker for "balanced":


Eldar -20%
Tau -15%
Necrons -5%
Space Marines +/-0%
Space Wolves +/-0%
Dark Angels +5%
Grey Knights +10%
Blood Angels +15%
Cult Mechanicus ?
Skitarii ?
Sisters of Battle +5%
Astra Militarum +10%
Chaos Daemons +/-0%
Chaos Space Marines +15%
Dark Eldar +20%
Tyranids +20%
Orks +15%
Imperial Knights +/-0%

The problem with just adding points to an army rather than mucking around with the individual stats of a unit is that people will just spam whatever they have in their codex that works rather than give those shelf dwellers a run out

I think it certainly has some merit, but like igtr said, it won't encourage the use of "weaker" units, and some of the balancing issues go beyond points difference.

 IGtR= wrote:
The problem with just adding points to an army rather than mucking around with the individual stats of a unit is that people will just spam whatever they have in their codex that works rather than give those shelf dwellers a run out

The other problem is that spamming good units still has limitations due to the CAD. Taking multiple CAD just creates more points taxes.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
The problem with just adding points to an army rather than mucking around with the individual stats of a unit is that people will just spam whatever they have in their codex that works rather than give those shelf dwellers a run out

The other problem is that spamming good units still has limitations due to the CAD. Taking multiple CAD just creates more points taxes.

Don't these two issues eventually cancel each other out? ...anyway, I totally understand the good units versus weaker units argument - but I know personally I'd be more inclined to build a "fun" Tyranid list if I was getting some free points while simultaneously my Eldar appointment had to make sacrifices.

Short of actually re-writing all the codex, which nobody (certainly not me) seems to be doing - there has to be some, easier, short-gap 'improvement' at least.

The main problem is that there are units which are useless even if they would cost 1 point per model and others would still be taken even if you double their point cost

And nobody (except me it seems) is trying to re-write the codex books because there is the risk that GW can mess up your whole work with an unannounced release (FAQ, Rules, Campaign) next week.

@List
SoB with +5% while Guard gets 10% and DE 20% seem a little bit wired.
Sisters should get around 20% because even a maxed list is wiped out by a weak Eldar list in turn 2. While DE and MA are not that bad.

And there is an additional problem of balancing is that sisters can smash infantry heavy ie ork or guard builds but die against windrider spam. Costing them with rough percentages doesn't resolve the "cookie cutter" builds that current codexes inspire

Well ha here's how I look at it... Sisters codex is REAL old. There is no "simple" solution there, and again I'm not looking for perfect, because barring re-writing ALL the codex that's just not possible...

I'm looking for better, not perfect. SoB I've always believed were pretty competitive though, despite the limited options (which is half design and half unbalanced units).

Further - pretty much EVERY codex can get wiped by a lazy Eldar list. :-) ...which is entirely the point, which is why they have a -20% tax or something like that.

The problem with this is that it is a simple solution to a complex problem, and it leaves many holes and flaws. Especially when the reason for that simplicity is "it's too hard/complex", that's never a good reason.

For a simple example of one of the major holes, how do allies work?

For another one, how do you decide these numbers? Where is your math?

The bottom line is that just because your solution is fast and easy does not give it inherent value.

 curran12 wrote:
The problem with this is that it is a simple solution to a complex problem, and it leaves many holes and flaws. Especially when the reason for that simplicity is "it's too hard/complex", that's never a good reason.

For a simple example of one of the major holes, how do allies work?

For another one, how do you decide these numbers? Where is your math?

The bottom line is that just because your solution is fast and easy does not give it inherent value.

Point manipulation doesn't leave any "holes or flaws" that were not already there. Why would allies work any different? ...where is the major hole? ...you add 500 points of Eldar they still suffer the same points tax.

Look, I know this community after 30-ish years, and I expected literal pulling of teeth to get the smallest amount of positive input haha, but are you suggesting that the ONLY solution is a "perfect solution"? ...because 40K has never been perfect and with such a divided community it never will be, and further it's not just a matter of "too hard/compex" but re-writing all of the codex is simply not realistic. Unless that is what you are suggesting?

As for the math -- that's why it's posted here for input, and as for the value, the cost of ideas are free my dude so the value is entirely subjective. Thanks for your input though.

Okay, here's how allies falls apart.

You have different scales for Space Marines, Blood Angels and Dark Angels, yes? All of them have Tactical Squads, but in this system, they now all cost different values. With that, you've made the army with the best discounts the best ally, why would I ever ally with X when I can get Y for considerably cheaper?

And ease off of the defensiveness, if this is your reaction to someone asking for your math and for your justifications for your numbers, you may need to take a step back.

 curran12 wrote:
Okay, here's how allies falls apart.

You have different scales for Space Marines, Blood Angels and Dark Angels, yes? All of them have Tactical Squads, but in this system, they now all cost different values. With that, you've made the army with the best discounts the best ally, why would I ever ally with X when I can get Y for considerably cheaper?

And ease off of the defensiveness, if this is your reaction to someone asking for your math and for your justifications for your numbers, you may need to take a step back.

Honestly I've just always found the 40k-Communitys' constant negativity really obnoxious and pointless so excuse my blunt manner... but if you're saying any solution that isn't perfect isn't worth pursuing then in my opinion you've contributed nothing. As for the math, I seriously wasn't being defensive - because I never claimed to have any "justification for the numbers" and in fact that is the ENTIRE reason I posted here - for community input regarding those numbers.

These issues you've brought up, are the same issues we have now. Literally the same. Can someone build jerk-lists and "cherry pick" the best/cheapest units now? ...yup; and you can never stop some people from being jerkish. Manipulating points will certainly not fix this issue, and it will not fix several other issues... but please tell me honestly - do you truly believe that it wouldn't be "better" (while not perfect) at least to have certain OP codex suffer a tax on points and other struggling codex to gain points?

Don't put words in my mouth. As much as you want me to be the big, bad "oh he's so obnoxious and negative" don't tell me what I said, kay? Just because it doesn't make you happy doesn't mean you get to paint me as a bad guy. Are we clear?

The bottom line is that I find that blanket solutions rarely work. Or, when they do work, they create other problems that negate good changes. As you said, there are still people who play as jerks, and, by your own words, this is the same under your idea as the status quo. So really, what progress is being made? The devil is in the details, and it is not an easy thing to work out. Personally, I would go unit-by-unit, heck, even weapon-by-weapon to sort out what needs adjusting.

 curran12 wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. As much as you want me to be the big, bad "oh he's so obnoxious and negative" don't tell me what I said, kay? Just because it doesn't make you happy doesn't mean you get to paint me as a bad guy. Are we clear?

The bottom line is that I find that blanket solutions rarely work. Or, when they do work, they create other problems that negate good changes. As you said, there are still people who play as jerks, and, by your own words, this is the same under your idea as the status quo. So really, what progress is being made? The devil is in the details, and it is not an easy thing to work out. Personally, I would go unit-by-unit, heck, even weapon-by-weapon to sort out what needs adjusting.

Ok I think I understand where you are coming from... you want a fool proof solution to stop people from being jerks? ...I, on the other hand, recognize that jerks are jerks and I don't play with jerks ha... (as I originally stated this isn't for tournament play). My painting skills are hardly good enough to make you a 'bad guy' but you do sound awful negative.

What you are suggesting, going unit-by-unit, weapon-by-weapon, is not just "too hard" it's totally unreasonable; and I'm sure you know that. Simply put - I'm looking for BETTER, not perfect. Better IS progress, even if it remains flawed.

I actually do agree that "blanket solutions rarely work" but this entirely system is based on points for the sake of balance, it's a good starting point. Also it's easy to distribute throughout a group whereas going down every rabbit hole of unit/weapon/special-rule balancing would require something epic.

And frankly, the point manipulation is not even 'my idea' I'm just trying to flush it out, hopefully, with help from the community - I'd be really surprised if most people don't agree that going this route (adjusting the math accordingly of course) would make 40K matchups at least 'better'.

Just as a side note, if putting words in my mouth and blaming the community's negativity are the standard response to criticism, maybe you might want to look inward at negativity problems. Because you certainly aren't making a case for yourself here in my eyes. Frankly, all it seems is that you want people to agree with you, not actually provide feedback. Especially when you keep harping on with "better IS progress, even if it remains flawed".

Let me turn some of your quote around on you. Why is going unit-by-unit so unreasonable?

And, to further go on your points, why is this more balanced? While we all agree that Eldar are extremely powerful, why 20%? Why not 15? Why not 25? Same with the armies that get a benefit. I'm not going to just take someone's word for any of these. I want an explanation, and if that explanation is 'well that's what I think', then fine, tell me why.

 curran12 wrote:
Just as a side note, if putting words in my mouth and blaming the community's negativity are the standard response to criticism, maybe you might want to look inward at negativity problems. Because you certainly aren't making a case for yourself here in my eyes. Frankly, all it seems is that you want people to agree with you, not actually provide feedback. Especially when you keep harping on with "better IS progress, even if it remains flawed".

Let me turn some of your quote around on you. Why is going unit-by-unit so unreasonable?

Ok well first, better IS progress, period. The word 'progress' insinuates moving forward not the final destination.

Now, with an effort not to sound defensive, please tell me do you think you've provided any 'constructive' feedback? ...this community has been negative for decades blah blah blah and it's never helped anyone in my opinion but that's not why I'm here.

Secondly, to be fair, unit-by-unit/weapon-by-weapon is unreasonable at least by me. Perhaps someone here or elsewhere, perhaps you, could manage a job of this scope, but not me. Further how would you distribute such a 'modification'? ...in reality this is what GW should do but they literally never have and it would be crazy to expect it from them now.

 curran12 wrote:
And, to further go on your points, why is this more balanced? While we all agree that Eldar are extremely powerful, why 20%? Why not 15? Why not 25? Same with the armies that get a benefit. I'm not going to just take someone's word for any of these. I want an explanation, and if that explanation is 'well that's what I think', then fine, tell me why.

Ok well, thank you, finally this is what I was after... exactly, why 20% and not 25%? ...that is what I am asking here; that is what I'd like your input on. In a "2000pt" game, 1800pts of Eldar can still bring TONS of hurt but at least that's 1 or 2 less units his opponent must worry about; in an objective based game this could make a difference.

As for the actual numbers, the math, I am just making guesses based on my perspective and the community's ranking of codex to start, but I'd love more input.

Well, as far as unit-by-unit and weapon-by-weapon, the scale is big, but hardly insurmountable. It is certainly an intimidating job, but it is the only way I see it enacting major and meaningful changes. I will disagree that broad blanket points handicaps are progress. They are movement, but not progress in my opinion. It's like using a sledgehammer to perform surgery, wrong tool for the job.

Explain -20% more as in if eldar plays 1000pts they actually have only 800pts?

 curran12 wrote:
Well, as far as unit-by-unit and weapon-by-weapon, the scale is big, but hardly insurmountable. It is certainly an intimidating job, but it is the only way I see it enacting major and meaningful changes. I will disagree that broad blanket points handicaps are progress. They are movement, but not progress in my opinion. It's like using a sledgehammer to perform surgery, wrong tool for the job.

Hmm ok but just to be clear here; what you are suggesting is literally re-writing every single GW codex yeah? Well maybe you're right, maybe it's not insurmountable - but I just don't see it EVER being done, not by me, not even by GW ha. ...so basically let's just continue to do nothing because any other solution short of an entire re-write of all codex is not perfect. Eh ok.

As for the points manipulation per codex, I don't agree it's a "sledgehammer". The point system is literally the primary source of balance throughout the game, not just at a micro level... taking a macro approach is certainly too vague to solve every issue, many problems will clearly persist, but I'm still surprised you don't think it would help at all, in terms of making more evenly matched games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grief wrote:
Explain -20% more as in if eldar plays 1000pts they actually have only 800pts?

Yes exactly ...though -20% and all of those numbers are just examples to get the ball rolling. They'd certainly need flushing out...

I don't think that a bonus/tax on a per army basis works in any way. I think this requires to go unit by unit and apply the bonus/tax that way. Going by army actually would actually make people want to take MORE of their best stuff rather than a more diverse list.

5% more Ravenwing for me? Gimme gimme!

The more I think about this, the DA codex is a great example of why trying to assign a flat % bonus or handicap won't really work. I guess the OP thought of buffing Greenwing and Deathwing without putting too much thought into what would happen to the most powerful build of the codex. Whatever the case, trying this approach with the DA codex is doomed to fail spectacularly. Mono DW can't really be played anymore and there aren't any reasons (from a competitive standpoint) to play Lion's Blade instead of Gladius.

Points manipulation doesn't work in any way for the likes of Chaos Marines either... All it does is ensure X% more of the barely half dozen or so things in the codex that still work. (ie: Plaguemarines/Cultists, Oblits, Spawn, Bikes, Maulerfiend, Sorcerers.)

The army itself is fundamentally flawed as it's still being designed to play a game that hasn't existed for 10+ years. Rhino Rush close combat armies died out long ago, they were bad in 5th, and from 6th on, the core rules don't even allow for it anymore.

No amount of 'bonus points' can help CSM's break out of their basic awful design & lack of modern toys.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Points manipulation doesn't work in any way for the likes of Chaos Marines either... All it does is ensure X% more of the barely half dozen or so things in the codex that still work. (ie: Plaguemarines/Cultists, Oblits, Spawn, Bikes, Maulerfiend, Sorcerers.)

The army itself is fundamentally flawed as it's still being designed to play a game that hasn't existed for 10+ years. Rhino Rush close combat armies died out long ago, they were bad in 5th, and from 6th on, the core rules don't even allow for it anymore.

No amount of 'bonus points' can help CSM's break out of their basic awful design & lack of modern toys.

This is a prime example of why points manipulation at an army level doesn't work. If it could be worked out on a per unit basis, though.....I do understand the ridiculous level of work that would be involved in doing it this way, but it's really the only way to make it work the way it should

There is no substitute for appropriately costed units. Armies are broken; units are. Some armies become synonymous with certain units because those units are spammed so hard. Because not spamming those units would be dumb.