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.

Wayniac wrote:
@Fenrir Kitsune Yes, but to a point. Sometimes you have to risk pissing off the players to actually fix the game longterm, not just short-term goals.

Again, I'll give a Warmachine example (sorry, it's what I mainly played the last year or so). They recently did a new edition, some people weren't happy with the changes, I totally get that, but the overall game needed improvements so the changes were for the best.

if GW were to put limits back on things, I have no doubt a lot of people would be unhappy and complain. But if that decision made the game more playable, had more people join, and overall provided better balance would it not be worth it? I say yes.

So to answer your question bluntly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). The game would benefit from more restrictions and balancing; if that means that people who bought 3 Imperial Knights or 3 Wraithknights or whatever can't use it all the time, then it sucks but it would make the game better overall.

I'd much prefer a rebalanceing of Infantry vs. Superheavies just so that Superheavies only functioned well with support form other units. People could still use their three Knights or whatever, but it would be risky. MORE GRENADES for infantry, remove restriction of "walkers may only be hit on front" for Superheavies. Correct the FAQ Grenade limitations. Maybe even bonuses for infantry vs. superheavies (call it "The Harder they Fall").


There will always be complainers about balance, regardless if its valid or not.

IKs are actually very easy to kill compared to GMCs. Toughness and a save are much better than AV.

Martel732 wrote:
IKs are actually very easy to kill compared to GMCs. Toughness and a save are much better than AV.

Plus FNP!

Instant Death is pretty much the "Melta" of MCs and GMCs but it's not common enough yet throughout the factions.

Instant death might as well not exist in 7th ed. That's how accessbile it is.

Martel732 wrote:
IKs are actually very easy to kill compared to GMCs. Toughness and a save are much better than AV.

They're different animals and dependent on what you are bringing. As a vanilla SM player a WK is an easy kill because of Grav. Imperial Knights have the issue that it's not too uncommon that they are fielded as an entire army.

Vanilla marines are a weird exception to this.

I still feel like the best way to fix the state of the game is to give it the 30k treatment.

Sure, bring on an 8th edition with other sweeping changes. Reduce the number of USRs. Clean up the 4-6 different resolution methods the game has. Get rid of armor values so everything works on the same system instead of multiple systems within the same base game.

But more importantly, kill decurions and formations. Everyone gets 1 FOC and an optional 1 ally detachment.

LoW cannot cost more than 25% of your total army value (i.e. 500 points in a 2k army).

Most HQ are only 1 per every 1000 points but give the option to use Rites of War to adjust how armies are fielded. Giving new options for units to occupy different FoC slots and new deployment methods coupled with restrictions for what you can and cannot bring.

Decurions and formations encourage monobuilds. RoW encourage fluffy options while still leaving you a fully open FoC to build with. Powerful HQs being limited 1 per 1k points reduces deathstar shenanigans or Tyranid Flying Circuses and LoW being no more than 25% of army cost prevents people from bringing some monstrosity that the opponent cannot reasonably deal with at their point value.

Oh also (from 30k), make upgrade options that effect the whole unit a flat value for the unit instead of per model and adding extra models a slightly lower cost then the initial unit. That way if you want to go MSU you do so at a cost. The advantages of MSU stick around but the most efficient point expenditure comes from building up the units you have.

 Lance845 wrote:

Oh also (from 30k), make upgrade options that effect the whole unit a flat value for the unit instead of per model and adding extra models a slightly lower cost then the initial unit. That way if you want to go MSU you do so at a cost. The advantages of MSU stick around but the most efficient point expenditure comes from building up the units you have.

As much as I don't personally care for it, I think the Formations genie is out of the bottle, unfortunately. I really like the above suggestion though.

 Lance845 wrote:
I still feel like the best way to fix the state of the game is to give it the 30k treatment.

Sure, bring on an 8th edition with other sweeping changes. Reduce the number of USRs. Clean up the 4-6 different resolution methods the game has. Get rid of armor values so everything works on the same system instead of multiple systems within the same base game.

But more importantly, kill decurions and formations. Everyone gets 1 FOC and an optional 1 ally detachment.

LoW cannot cost more than 25% of your total army value (i.e. 500 points in a 2k army).

Most HQ are only 1 per every 1000 points but give the option to use Rites of War to adjust how armies are fielded. Giving new options for units to occupy different FoC slots and new deployment methods coupled with restrictions for what you can and cannot bring.

Decurions and formations encourage monobuilds. RoW encourage fluffy options while still leaving you a fully open FoC to build with. Powerful HQs being limited 1 per 1k points reduces deathstar shenanigans or Tyranid Flying Circuses and LoW being no more than 25% of army cost prevents people from bringing some monstrosity that the opponent cannot reasonably deal with at their point value.

Oh also (from 30k), make upgrade options that effect the whole unit a flat value for the unit instead of per model and adding extra models a slightly lower cost then the initial unit. That way if you want to go MSU you do so at a cost. The advantages of MSU stick around but the most efficient point expenditure comes from building up the units you have.

+1! So much +1!

So, eldar would always be able to get a cheezy WK while my orkses would never field a stompa. Ever. Cau'se it's apparently only good for 4k games while a WK that's arguably stronger is fine in 1500 pt games. And i wouldn't be able to get fearless manz to have a chance of dealing with it to boot. Nice.

Would it also require a codex rewrite for better balance? Than why do we need foc restrictions, once again? Also, 30k has the exact same problems of fluffy vs cutthroat lists. They're just seen way less often due to players themselves being mostly fluff-oriented. But than you could meet a world eater mass footslogging army vs an iron hand gunline with 0 chances of winning if you ever try to get out of ruins with world eaters.

 koooaei wrote:
So, eldar would always be able to get a cheezy WK while my orkses would never field a stompa. Ever. Cau'se it's apparently only good for 4k games while a WK that's arguably stronger is fine in 1500 pt games. And i wouldn't be able to get fearless manz to have a chance of dealing with it to boot. Nice.

Would it also require a codex rewrite for better balance? Than why do we need foc restrictions, once again?

To force people to stop bringing stupid armies that are plain cheese. Of course, this would be after Eldar, Tau and Space Marines received the biggest nerf ever seen and where (for once) the weakest armies in the game.

So, never.

 koooaei wrote:
So, eldar would always be able to get a cheezy WK while my orkses would never field a stompa. Ever. Cau'se it's apparently only good for 4k games while a WK that's arguably stronger is fine in 1500 pt games. And i wouldn't be able to get fearless manz to have a chance of dealing with it to boot. Nice.

Would it also require a codex rewrite for better balance? Than why do we need foc restrictions, once again? Also, 30k has the exact same problems of fluffy vs cutthroat lists. They're just seen way less often due to players themselves being mostly fluff-oriented. But than you could meet a world eater mass footslogging army vs an iron hand gunline with 0 chances of winning if you ever try to get out of ruins with world eaters.

Your talking to a Nid player. My LoW choices are all FW and one of the 3 is 1000 points base. Orcs and Nids are due for a new Codex. Also, LoW are not part of the base FoC in 30k. They are an optional separate detachment with a single slot that players are supposed to agree to use. Same with fortifications.

The problem isn't fluffy vs cutthroat. That is a non problem. Different players approach the game from different angles and they should be allowed to. The problem with 40k now is decurions and formations promoting monobuilds. I don't want to fight Necrons and every time see a reclamation legion. I want players to have access to a full FoC to build the lists they enjoy playing.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
So, never.

Those armies are powerful now because of formations and decurions. Removing them will give those armies a kick in the pants and knock them down a few pegs.

Some formations allow people to actually build an army the way they want to play though; an example for me would be the airborne formation in militarum tempestus. The issue is some formations giving a bit too much for free. I like how AoS actually makes you pay to use a formation instead of getting it just for taking the models.

 n0t_u wrote:
Some formations allow people to actually build an army the way they want to play though; an example for me would be the airborne formation in militarum tempestus. The issue is some formations giving a bit too much for free. I like how AoS actually makes you pay to use a formation instead of getting it just for taking the models.

30k uses Rites of War to accomplish a similar effect without free special rules and (generally) without requirements.

An example would be orbital assault. (I probably don't have the exact details of this correct, but it gets the gist of it)

Units that could take rhinos as dedicated transports can take drop pods as dedicated transports.
Assault Marines (the jump infantry) can be taken as troops (important... they can still be taken as FA, it's just now they can ALSO be taken as troops).
Every unit needs to either arrive in a drop pod or flying transport or be jump infantry.

RoW open up options to let you field things in different ways in the same way that formations do but they remove exact unit restrictions that force monobuilds, gets rid of free bonus rules, and help encourage fluffy play.

 n0t_u wrote:
Some formations allow people to actually build an army the way they want to play though

Exactly, and why wouldn't they want free stuff? My regular opponent, a tau player, found out one of his 1500pt lists could in a puff of magic get free stuff for simply calling it by the name of a formation. Literally nothing would have to change to get free stuff. So once has his free stuff, where is the incentive to, you know, not take free stuff? Even going unbound actually costs points.

 n0t_u wrote:
an example for me would be the airborne formation in militarum tempestus.

The existence of less than amazing formations really does nothing to alter the god awful game breaking race to the bottom ones.

 n0t_u wrote:
The issue is some formations giving a bit too much for free. I like how AoS actually makes you pay to use a formation instead of getting it just for taking the models.

Free is a large part of the problem, but the other large part is pricing insane synergy, ie even if formations went back to actually costing points, how do you value something that is such a force multiplier it makes whole armies better? That's already a problem for 40k in general and GW have shrugged off doing their homework and costing things in context of whats fielding them, that's how we got random psychic powers instead of how much unit x pays for psychic power y.

RoWs have drawbacks. Formations not realy, because they are not restrictive enough and some of them are just crazy.
Say, I wanna play AdMech in a fluffy way: I am forced to use either Unbound or that complete crazy War Convocation. With horrendous imbalanced buffs, and the stupid thing, that the Skitarii are in their vanilla-formation. So I don´t play that.

The Ordo Reductor War Covenant on the other hand is way more fun! I have buffs, that are not complete crazy, I am restricted with the compulsory stuff like HQ, Troops and Automata. But I have unique stuff like fething artillery-tanks. And I can´t use any allys and fortifications. That suits my playstyle waaay better.
Yes, you can abuse that too, but the fun part is, that thing is way more flexible and interessting than most of the 40k formations and metadetachments this days.

Whatever the solution may be, I do feel the game is not sustainable at this level. Sure, some people might be having fun and more power to them, but I feel there's way too much bloat and nothing is be done about it. One thing i tend to notice in these types of discussions though, the people who like the game seem to find nothing wrong with any of it, like they don't mind LOWs and the like, and think it's great GW is coming out with more new things like Genestealer Cults and not fixing the game, and not only that but get vehemently angry at the suggestions things are not, in fact, perfect and the game is "the best it's ever been".

Wayniac wrote:
Whatever the solution may be, I do feel the game is not sustainable at this level. Sure, some people might be having fun and more power to them, but I feel there's way too much bloat and nothing is be done about it. One thing i tend to notice in these types of discussions though, the people who like the game seem to find nothing wrong with any of it, like they don't mind LOWs and the like, and think it's great GW is coming out with more new things like Genestealer Cults and not fixing the game, and not only that but get vehemently angry at the suggestions things are not, in fact, perfect and the game is "the best it's ever been".

I enjoy the game well enough, and I like that GSC showed up in particular because they actually managed to produce a new army that plays differently from the other armies.

That being said I studied Game Design (my BA is actually in Game Design) and 40k is a mess. These days I look at Proposed Rules and You Make Da Call more then P&M which used to be my forum of choice. Understanding the games faults and still managing to find some fun in it by playing with people who don't bring all the bull is a testament to what fun the core of the game can be (though even that has a lot of faults).

The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.

Either scaling down the stupid (Big armies, game scale and super heavies and the like) or writing a new rule set to accommodate the game as it is now would be a huge relief. Right now we have a Platoon scale game using Skirmish level system trying to represent Company level battles. And it really shows because it really does not work.

Fact is, 40K is just a bad game.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.

I've been out of the game since the 4th Ed and just trying to get back into it now. It is a nightmare trying to get to grips with all these new rules.

Someone help.

confurioso wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
The core of the game is 40K 3rd Edition. Play that, or 4th, and you'll have a great game. It's not hard to retro-engineer AdMech or Genestealer Cults into 4th or 3rd, and it cuts 99% of the insanity.

I've been out of the game since the 4th Ed and just trying to get back into it now. It is a nightmare trying to get to grips with all these new rules.

Someone help.

Just play 4th Edition. It's a better game in almost every respect.

current 40k really need to implement the "I go, you go" mechanism. It would solve a lot of the current problems imo and would make the game far more dynamic and interesting. At the very least, the passive players should have more options than just "deny the witch", "jink", "go to the ground" and "overwatch". I really hope 8th edition introduce it, ideally with a command points mechanism where each HQ give a certain amount of points which can be used to do such actions.

I don't want to see 40K get oversimplified a la AoS. A vehicle and a living creature are 2 vastly different things, I feel it's appropriate they both have different rules to represent them on the battlefield. But it doesn't mean that some of the bloat can't be removed (for example, not including running in the movement phase is beyond slowed). Removing formations would be a huge step in the right direction as it really clog the game down with the abundance of special rules and the hassle of keeping track which units is part of which formation (not even talking about balancing issues it bring and boring monobuild lits). Different FOC as they seem to be doing at the start of 7th edition is a far better system, though it should only be 1 for your main army and 1 ally FOC max. They probably should add more restrictions to the FOC and scale them up to the battle size (i.e. add one mandatory troops choices and 1 optional choice for every slice of 500 points over 2000).

Finally, the biggest current issue that needs to be fix is of course the balance. Hire some statisticians to do it. As of now, they are far too many armies and units for simply having a couple of idiots pull unit costs out of their ass after playing a game or two with them. No matter how good the rules are (and let's be honest, they aren't 40K strong point), the game will still be a mess if taking a certain build equal auto win vs some armies.

I would really enjoy I go you go in the form of alternating activation's. I think it really adds a lot of strategy to the game.

Formations are not the problem in general, it is about 5-6 units/formations are causing a majority of problems for the entire game. Curb those units and the game is playable and enjoyable even thought it is not balanced.

The problem is those units/formations are so powerful that they overwhelm any other type of list that you would want to play.

Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them.

Formations suck.

 Lance845 wrote:
Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them.

Formations suck.

Is not only that: it promotes a mindset that allows a unit to be written sucky, because it can be "fixed" (possibly) with a formation later.
This kills custom lists and low-points games.

Formations are garbage, pure and simple. They can be game disrupting garbage or not, but they remain garbage.

They exist to force us to buy multiple copies of the same model and to promote SpamHammer40k.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Formations promote mono-builds. They will never be balanced against each other. The stronger formations within a codex will become must takes and the rest of the army will get built around them.

Formations suck.

Is not only that: it promotes a mindset that allows a unit to be written sucky, because it can be "fixed" (possibly) with a formation later.
This kills custom lists and low-points games.

Formations are garbage, pure and simple. They can be game disrupting garbage or not, but they remain garbage.

They exist to force us to buy multiple copies of the same model and to promote SpamHammer40k.

No doubt. While I do think formations do have some benefits (namely, building thematic forces), it's nothing that couldn't be done by adding a greater variety of FOC with more restrictions.