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.

Even if you're right, it's still a disaster for BA, as we have some of the worst troops in the game. Tacs with no grav cannon and scouts. SW will just continue to perma-own me. I think the troop thing just shifts the imbalances around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
Formations were and are a disaster. An obvious and egregious mistake that should be removed with 8th Edition, but won't be, because it's a great sales pitch.

Actually, that's probably the main issue.

They write rules to sell their figures and vehicles. They're not bothered about balance so long as the next release is going to sell like hot cakes.

I disagree. Miscosted units are still worse.

40k has always had massive issues with miscosted units, but, at least in my experience, nothing has done more harm to the game than Formations and their freebies and the synergies and spam potential they offer.

I laughed at the whole "spirit of the game" and "forge the narrative" arguments.
Do people really not realise that they are just GW's excuses for lazy and extremely bad rules writing, along side their complete failure to engage the community?

niall78 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I don't think anyone is stating that there shouldn't be mathematically applied "balanced" point costs. People are simply indicating that while the current game lacks any form of balance --- the easiest solution outside of a tournament is to simply not make cheesy/beardy lists. That would be the "spirit of the game" argument.

Player A plays Army A.

Player B plays Army B.

Both players are roughly of the same intellect and can play the game at a similar skill level. Let's assume they play 20 games and Player B's army wins 18/20 games --- playing perfectly balanced missions using the points system as it is.

This sucks. The easiest solution is to simply have Player B adjust his list and minimize the things which both players agree are too powerful or inexpensive for their capability etc. If the players feel compelled and can agree, sure, reduce or increase points costs, etc. It's not a perfect solution, but it works. Same thing goes for new players. If a new player is slowly building up an army and is starting with basic troops - don't be a cockhead and crush the dude with your most powerful super armored heavy-heroes.

I fully understand the complaints about game balance, particularly in tournaments, pick-up games with strangers, etc. Amongst friends it can be negated and balanced out by simple choices made by the players.

"Spirit of the game" is as nebulous as "happiness". It means completely different things to different people even in a casual play. In no way do vague statements about the spirit of the game absolve GW from designing a game in which the forces can be balanced properly for all types of play. Dumping such work on the player base and then expecting everyone to agree with each others arbitrary thoughts about what the actual spirit of the game should be is a recipe for disaster.

On the most basic level your suggested solution is a complete nightmare for the player base. They'll buy hundreds of Euro worth of product for their army, more cash on books, will spend weeks painting it up and when they bring it to a game they'll potentially be a 'cockhead' depending on the local meta. In my opinion it's better to just have reasonably balanced rules that negate such nonsense and make all the very expensive plastic pieces usable in the games at the appropriate points cost.

Who, in this entire thread has stated that GW shouldn't design a tighter ruleset with more logical balance/points? Not a single person in this entire thread has argued against that. What do you think is more likely? GW is going to about-face and actually do all of the work necessary to balance the game? Not likely. Hence the only answer available is that players will have to nut up and do it themselves.

GW sucks at designing games. Big deal. So the option is to fix it yourselves or bail.

This whole "Balance vs. Forge the Narrative" argument sounds very much like the battle that was waged over 4E D&D.

4E was touted as a very balanced system, and a horde of folks hated it for being "bland" or "samey with different costumes" (including me).

When 5E D&D was trotted out, it kept many of the underlying balancing mechanics in it, but gave several nods back to older systems by balancing through diversity (balancing at-will abilities vs. per day abilities - like Fighter vs. Wizard). It is, to me, a very good mix of a well-built underlying system useful for organized play that adapts easily to narrativism and home games.

Now, I'd like 40K to be better balanced than it is now, but at the same time, balance isn't everything. Taken too far, you end up with a game that more resembles Chess or the miniatures version of Risk, where there's no individuality.

It's possible to balance asymetrically, or even make some armies more diffucult to be successful with than others. But that sort of stuff needs to be stated up front, and GW Randomness does not equate balance, EVER.

It also doesn't help that GW has been marketing this game as a competative game for several versions, and now is trying to imply they never intended for that to be the case, so they don't have to put effort into fixing their borked rules.

They need to sit down and rewrite the core game so it will work competitively, but also so that it can be used Narratively.

 Stormonu wrote:
This whole "Balance vs. Forge the Narrative" argument sounds very much like the battle that was waged over 4E D&D.

4E was touted as a very balanced system, and a horde of folks hated it for being "bland" or "samey with different costumes" (including me).

When 5E D&D was trotted out, it kept many of the underlying balancing mechanics in it, but gave several nods back to older systems by balancing through diversity (balancing at-will abilities vs. per day abilities - like Fighter vs. Wizard). It is, to me, a very good mix of a well-built underlying system useful for organized play that adapts easily to narrativism and home games.

Now, I'd like 40K to be better balanced than it is now, but at the same time, balance isn't everything. Taken too far, you end up with a game that more resembles Chess or the miniatures version of Risk, where there's no individuality.

It's possible to balance asymetrically, or even make some armies more diffucult to be successful with than others. But that sort of stuff needs to be stated up front, and GW Randomness does not equate balance, EVER.

It also doesn't help that GW has been marketing this game as a competative game for several versions, and now is trying to imply they never intended for that to be the case, so they don't have to put effort into fixing their borked rules.

They need to sit down and rewrite the core game so it will work competitively, but also so that it can be used Narratively.

Balance and blandness have nothing to do with each other. Individual units just need to be appropriately costed.

8th edition should revert back to just troops scoring. With everything scoring, the upside is more of the board is relevant late game, but at the same time, it doesn't do enough to incentivize taking troops. Lists just end up being all the good toys and a couple troops, and that's only if you have the common decency and self respect to play with a cad and not go all apoc. 30k doesn't have the same prob as 40k because in 30k scoring units are highly incentivized.



I think we have arrived at the visual representations of 7th edition phase of this discussion.


Pretty accurate

10/10 for that picture Crablezworth, I laughed my ass off

 Crablezworth wrote:
8th edition should revert back to just troops scoring. With everything scoring, the upside is more of the board is relevant late game, but at the same time, it doesn't do enough to incentivize taking troops. Lists just end up being all the good toys and a couple troops, and that's only if you have the common decency and self respect to play with a cad and not go all apoc. 30k doesn't have the same prob as 40k because in 30k scoring units are highly incentivized.

The problem with only troops scoring, aside from making very little fluff sense, is that it make really punishes anyone who wants to do a themed army around something other than the basic troops. Like, say I want to do a first company terminator army. I either have token 5-man scout squads as a minimum tax outside of my theme and lose because I can't claim objectives, or I have to compromise my theme idea by taking a bunch of objective campers. That's a big problem in 30k, it doesn't matter how much you love those awesome elite units, you're going to be slogging through painting a bunch of tactical marines and paying a heavy tax in list building. Unless of course you get one of the RoW that lets you take something else as troops, usually locking you into a whole bunch of other theme-relevant restrictions.

The real solution to the troops problem is to make troops interesting on their own merits instead of being boring versions of better units. For example, IG troops are appealing no matter what FOC or scoring restrictions you have. If you want a typical "horde of bodies" army you're taking lots of troops. If you love melta/plasma spam elites you're taking lots of troops. Sure, you're also taking some tanks/aircraft/etc, but the troops are still a core element of your army. The problem exists when you have something like C:SM troops, where tactical marines are just a boring version of a sternguard squad. Maybe you can make an argument for the superior point efficiency of the tactical marines (especially with free transports) or their value in holding objectives, but theme-wise you have a comparison of "bland power armor marines with bolters" vs. "awesome power armor marines with bolters". And so anyone who enjoys the thematic idea of bolter marines is going to be drawn to the sternguard squad and only grudgingly accept that you have to bring some tactical marines. Forcing mandatory troops doesn't make the tactical marines any more enjoyable, the whole C:SM codex needs to change to give each unit its own distinct role and appealing theme.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
8th edition should revert back to just troops scoring. With everything scoring, the upside is more of the board is relevant late game, but at the same time, it doesn't do enough to incentivize taking troops. Lists just end up being all the good toys and a couple troops, and that's only if you have the common decency and self respect to play with a cad and not go all apoc. 30k doesn't have the same prob as 40k because in 30k scoring units are highly incentivized.

The problem with only troops scoring, aside from making very little fluff sense, is that it make really punishes anyone who wants to do a themed army around something other than the basic troops. Like, say I want to do a first company terminator army. I either have token 5-man scout squads as a minimum tax outside of my theme and lose because I can't claim objectives, or I have to compromise my theme idea by taking a bunch of objective campers. That's a big problem in 30k, it doesn't matter how much you love those awesome elite units, you're going to be slogging through painting a bunch of tactical marines and paying a heavy tax in list building. Unless of course you get one of the RoW that lets you take something else as troops, usually locking you into a whole bunch of other theme-relevant restrictions.

The real solution to the troops problem is to make troops interesting on their own merits instead of being boring versions of better units. For example, IG troops are appealing no matter what FOC or scoring restrictions you have. If you want a typical "horde of bodies" army you're taking lots of troops. If you love melta/plasma spam elites you're taking lots of troops. Sure, you're also taking some tanks/aircraft/etc, but the troops are still a core element of your army. The problem exists when you have something like C:SM troops, where tactical marines are just a boring version of a sternguard squad. Maybe you can make an argument for the superior point efficiency of the tactical marines (especially with free transports) or their value in holding objectives, but theme-wise you have a comparison of "bland power armor marines with bolters" vs. "awesome power armor marines with bolters". And so anyone who enjoys the thematic idea of bolter marines is going to be drawn to the sternguard squad and only grudgingly accept that you have to bring some tactical marines. Forcing mandatory troops doesn't make the tactical marines any more enjoyable, the whole C:SM codex needs to change to give each unit its own distinct role and appealing theme.

I should have said infantry


But ya, some elite units can still score provided they have implacable advance. I still think FW handles it better with rights of war, there's very few freebies and always downsides to the upsides.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I should have said infantry

I think that's kind of the same problem, especially if it goes back to the ridiculous situation where tanks can't score but MCs can. If a 500 point terminator death star can score an objective than why can't my LRBT? It makes scoring about the trivia of unit types rather than their actual role in the army, and punishes people who like the theme of a tank-heavy army.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I should have said infantry

I think that's kind of the same problem, especially if it goes back to the ridiculous situation where tanks can't score but MCs can. If a 500 point terminator death star can score an objective than why can't my LRBT? It makes scoring about the trivia of unit types rather than their actual role in the army, and punishes people who like the theme of a tank-heavy army.

I guess that's where we part ways old friend, because as much as someone may want to field an entire army of tanks or knights, I feel that goes completely against the idea of combined arms combat, I don't even like some of the tacky rights of war in 30k, but that's me. I will completely agree that what ultimately scores is arbitrary but should be done to create the right incentives for army construction. The current state of everything scoring certainly makes sense but does very little to incentivize "eating one's broccoli" so to speak when it comes to army construction. I like that in 30k right now, if I don't take enough scoring units in my list I better have a flawless battle plan and be ok with a very uphill battle. Not so in 40k, the incentives in 40k are bonkers and just pants on head silly.

The other option is to vary what scores by scenario, could help incentivize taking a good range of foc slots instead of all the sexy toys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I should have said infantry

It makes scoring about the trivia of unit types rather than their actual role in the army, and punishes people who like the theme of a tank-heavy army.

The other upside of 30k's scoring is, everything contests. So if you tank shocked a unit on an objective with an LRBT, as long as you get within 3 inches, that unit has to destroy or shift the tank to score. If you got last turn you can at least have a chance at lowering the enemies score. Not as good as scoring but at least its something.


There's a lot GW could do with scoring to make things more interesting. Units that add bonus vp to objectives but can't hold them themselves (create some kind of synergy) maybe that could be where armour comes in. Units that don't give away first blood, units that give a bonus for linebreaker (again something to give to tanks).


One thing GW got right with 7th was placing objectives before rolling for deployment, that's what we need more of from gw, common sense decisions that ultimately result in both players being unable to game to do the cynical thing at every step. Players can still place objectives badly but they'll ultimately have no one else to blame but themselves.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I guess that's where we part ways old friend, because as much as someone may want to field an entire army of tanks or knights, I feel that goes completely against the idea of combined arms combat, I don't even like some of the tacky rights of war in 30k, but that's me.

But a troops-heavy army that spams tactical squads to score objective isn't really combined arms either. Nor is an army that takes lots of terminators/crisis suits/etc and gets to score objectives because they aren't technically vehicles, despite having a similar strategic role. I agree that having combined arms/TAC lists be more common is probably a good thing, but I don't think that restrictions on scoring is the right approach.

Also, even armies that are heavy on vehicles can still be combined arms. For example, my IG armored company might take some veteran squads in Chimeras as support. They aren't going to be (and shouldn't be) the core of the army, and I'm hopelessly screwed if they're my only scoring units, but they're still present and the army as a whole makes fluff sense.

Not so in 40k, the incentives in 40k are bonkers and just pants on head silly.

I think that has more to do with GW using blatant power creep and constantly releasing "just like your troops, but more awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!" units than what scores. IMO letting everything score was one of the few good changes of 7th edition. Fix the balance issues and I think scoring works out fine. Even minimum-troops armies will still be fair and fun to play against.

Reading theough all these is a bit depressing for someone who just got back into 40K. Does 30K function much better? Are there any other tabletop games that are truly well done and balanced??

 Rakar wrote:
Does 30K function much better?

Somewhat better. It still has a lot of the problems with bloated core rules, questionable balance, etc, but it does at least exclude some of the worst offenders of 7th edition. Formations don't exist at all, LoW are limited to 25% of your army, etc. 30k plays like a continuation of 5th edition 40k, which had its problems but was far better than the disaster of 7th edition 40k.

Are there any other tabletop games that are truly well done and balanced??

Plenty of them. 40k is the outlier, really.

Thanks! 30k is tempting because you can, superficially at least, use a lot of the same units for 40k...I know I'd wind up getting annoyed if my army wasn't all coherent, so I'd realisticly wind up blowing money on a whole new army. As for other games, Warmachine/Hordes is all I've really heard about. If you were starting from scratch, which game would you go with?

 Rakar wrote:
Thanks! 30k is tempting because you can, superficially at least, use a lot of the same units for 40k...I know I'd wind up getting annoyed if my army wasn't all coherent, so I'd realisticly wind up blowing money on a whole new army. As for other games, Warmachine/Hordes is all I've really heard about. If you were starting from scratch, which game would you go with?

If you are interested in science fiction table-top war games you should have a look at Beyond the Gates of Antares by Warlord games designed by ex-40K designer Rick Priestly.

I've played it a few times and I've been very impressed. Hopefully I'll be committing to it more later this year.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
The Chaos God of Neckbeard Rage.

Ragebeard. His followers will get Rage and Beard usr.

Another vote for Antares - its very very good and quite cheap to amass an army.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Another vote for Antares - its very very good and quite cheap to amass an army.

Yeah the starter box is good value with great production values. The starter army and large force boxes are also a good deal.

https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/antares-army-deals

I have limited experience with the game - half a dozen battles with the starter box - but I've found it to be well balanced, highly tactical and engaging to play. Hopefully I'll be committing to it more later this year. Some ex-40K guys are rocking it in our club so I'd have a decent group to grab a few games with whenever the mood takes me.

I'm also interested in Mantics Warpath but haven't sampled it yet. So many great games - so little free time ..........................

Been playing it fairly often and it holds up very well to open gaming and scenario play.

What are peoples expectations for 8th ed ? Do you think GW will be able to put Apoc back in the box and bring some semblance of balance to the game ?

Martel732 wrote:
Even if you're right, it's still a disaster for BA, as we have some of the worst troops in the game. Tacs with no grav cannon and scouts. SW will just continue to perma-own me. I think the troop thing just shifts the imbalances around.

I heard on The Long War podcast that Angels Blade updates Blood Angel units to Codex Space Marines standards. They specifically mentioned Dev Squads getting grav cannons. I'd imagine that means Tac get grav cannons too.

That said, I have exactly the same Troops as you with my Dark Angels. I'd love me some Tac Squads with heavy flamers. Grav is decent against some armies, but the cannon costs as much as the Rhino they drive around in, and is marginal against IG.

Tacs don't get grav cannons. They get heavy flamers instead. Grav cannons are actually great vs IG because it can wreck Russes ignoring their AV.

Bartali wrote:
What are peoples expectations for 8th ed ? Do you think GW will be able to put Apoc back in the box and bring some semblance of balance to the game ?

I hope they do an AoS to the game. It really needs it. Have a neckbeard cull, send in the terminator, Matthew Hopkins or whatever, but give the damned game a freshening.

I heard on The Long War podcast that Angels Blade updates Blood Angel units to Codex Space Marines standards. They specifically mentioned Dev Squads getting grav cannons. I'd imagine that means Tac get grav cannons too.

That said, I have exactly the same Troops as you with my Dark Angels. I'd love me some Tac Squads with heavy flamers. Grav is decent against some armies, but the cannon costs as much as the Rhino they drive around in, and is marginal against IG.

Angels Blade and the revised 'Red Thirst' BA Codex is a bit of mess, regardless of what you think of the formations. Whilst Devs and Assault Marines are updated in-line with C:SM; Dreads, Terminators, Vanguards and Scouts still have their old BA codex entries.

It in no way (either unit wise or power level wise) updates them to C:SM standards.

Bartali wrote:
What are peoples expectations for 8th ed ? Do you think GW will be able to put Apoc back in the box and bring some semblance of balance to the game ?

No the models are out, so Apoc stays a part of the game for 8th ed. 7th has two issues to my thinking, to many rules, and the balance is way off between armies. In an effort to fix the second issue, they are adding in formations, which is GWs way of strengthening a weak army without invalidating the original codex. This makes the first issue worse, but works fairly well at making bad armies better, Orks, Chaos, and BA have all been brought much closer to competitive through the use of formations. However the first issue, which we will call "rules diarrhea", is whats going to kill this edition. To effectively play at a tournament level you have to have near encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, which presents a huge bar to entry.

Bartali wrote:
What are peoples expectations for 8th ed ? Do you think GW will be able to put Apoc back in the box and bring some semblance of balance to the game ?

Genie is out of the bottle, mostly by player demand. We got these cool, big models and we want something to do with them in a game that doesn't take a week to set up and play (true Apocalypse games). So, no, 8th will not be able to rectify the situation. In fact, it will only skew it further towards Adeptus Mechanicus-like play where you might as well put infantry units on movement trays for all their worth in a fight.

Im hoping they split the game into different scales with 8E, instead of trying to cram 3 or 4 differet scsles into one game. Alas, it will probably just take what 7E did even further or go a very AoS route.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Im hoping they split the game into different scales with 8E, instead of trying to cram 3 or 4 differet scsles into one game. Alas, it will probably just take what 7E did even further or go a very AoS route.

GW doesn't have the design talent to do much any more. Also saddled with massive legacy issues.