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.
2016/12/14 04:57:19
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pm713 wrote: Why add 4? It doesn't seem that useful to me. S4 is the same, S6 is a tiny bit better and S5 is the only one to get nerfed.
Because it eliminates a lot of questions in regards to upgrade timing etc. Most walkers with them are str6 so they end up even. Strength 7 may not cause instant death to T4, but it will harm av13 and the difference in damage potential is smaller. Each model paid for their strength score, so they should pay the same for an addition to it. It only becomes unfair is they are charged the same for the multiplication.
For what it's worth, I understood the question to be asking,
"Should a weapon like a Power Fist cost more for a Chapter Master than for a SM Sergeant than for a Guard Sergeant?". In order to reflect that the power fist is most useful / powerful on a CM, then SM Sarge, then IG Sarge.
Also as noted, should something like a Plasmagun be more expensive for a Space Marine than for a Guardsman? Since they're more likely to enjoy the benefit and less likely to be harmed by the drawback.
'Cause in a perfect world, that would mostly be related to overall unit role. For example, IG Vets should definitely pay more for their Special Weapons than Platoon Guardsmen. Not just because they're at a higher BS, but also, if you think about it, 3x PG in a Vet Squad costs 95 points base, or roughly 32 pts per Plasmagun, if you consider the Plasma to be the significant factor in that unit. 3x PG in Infantry Squads cost 195 pts, or 65 pts per Plasmagun. That's a gross oversimplification, but the basic point stands. The Plasma is vastly more efficient in Vet Squads, so should hypothetically cost more points than in an Infantry Squad.
All options should have an appropriate points cost assigned to them, but that doesn't mean that each upgrade will help you equally, depending on your target.
I've made a10-Man, Heavy Bolter laden Devastator squad "playable" by including Tigurius, and giving the unit Rending each round... plus re-roll misses. I took down a Knight with all the rending shots. It was mostly a silly, for the giggles game, but my buddy still cried cheese over it. Until I pointed out that the unit didn't move all game, and cost almost 400 points with Tiggy included. You can make most anything playable, if you consider their role and the available options.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/14 05:12:50
2016/12/14 07:42:03
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
However, traditio's question is actually - should every combination of choices (both units and uogrades) be equally effective?
There is no way to accomplish this without stripping all variety from the game. All units would need locked in weapon options with all units having the same spread of capabilities (e.g. Anti tank, anti flyer, anti infantry, etc.). Adittionally the differences between unit types would need to be suppressed or removed entirely.
Any kind of specialisation of either offense or defense must be removed or you end up with people building an army that lacks essential capabilities.
Even if this were possible (and it isn't without utterly gutting the game of variety) is it actually desirable?
It would require all units to be very samey, it would make positioning and target priority close to irrelevant (everything needs to be effective against everything, remember) and it eliminates any skill from army building.
Given how popular games with army building or deck building are it would seem that this would be a really bad move.
Traditio - can you point to any games where you feel that your desired state of any combination of choices is equally effective has actually been achieved.?
2016/12/14 12:04:14
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pm713 wrote: Why add 4? It doesn't seem that useful to me. S4 is the same, S6 is a tiny bit better and S5 is the only one to get nerfed.
Because it eliminates a lot of questions in regards to upgrade timing etc. Most walkers with them are str6 so they end up even. Strength 7 may not cause instant death to T4, but it will harm av13 and the difference in damage potential is smaller. Each model paid for their strength score, so they should pay the same for an addition to it. It only becomes unfair is they are charged the same for the multiplication.
Personally I've never had many issues with people confused about upgrade timing.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
2016/12/14 13:01:23
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pm713 wrote: Why add 4? It doesn't seem that useful to me. S4 is the same, S6 is a tiny bit better and S5 is the only one to get nerfed.
Because it eliminates a lot of questions in regards to upgrade timing etc. Most walkers with them are str6 so they end up even. Strength 7 may not cause instant death to T4, but it will harm av13 and the difference in damage potential is smaller. Each model paid for their strength score, so they should pay the same for an addition to it. It only becomes unfair is they are charged the same for the multiplication.
Personally I've never had many issues with people confused about upgrade timing.
Primarily the thunderwolves, but otherwise it just seemed to make sense. Adding a static bonus to a statistic instead of multiplying it would allow for the upgrade to maintain the same cost. Also, for the unwieldy property on weapons means that marines are losing one more initiative than a guardsman for the trade-off of one higher strength.
Gunzhard wrote:
Yeah seriously if we are sticking to canon you're right... just IG and Orks... I get the point you are trying to make though. But here's the thing. Using Space Marines as an example... the way a chapter is organized, and exactly how many Tactical marines and Devastator marines, squads and companies etc, is not necessarily reflective of the "most typical fighting forces"; read through any SM codex.
Nearly every space marine chapter has tons of tactical marines throughout all of their battle companies - but space marines don't fight that way where they send the entire chapter and its mass organization of tactical marines into battle. This, also being a narratively driven game, to varying degrees anyway, lends itself perfectly to situations where just Scouting type elements might be fighting, or just heavy Armour, or just close-quarters (terminator) fighters, or just elite vanguard units, or some odd mix of several different elements.
In a world where tournament players insist on fielding Sisters of Silence and Custodes, Space Marines must adhere to some narrow vision of just tactical marines? ...please.
No, Space Marines are not the only army that should have to take a lot of Troops. Every faction should have to take Troops-majority lists, because Troops are supposed to be the most numerous and common units on the battlefield.
Space Marines may not generally go into battle as an entire chapter very often, but their main fighting forces are the battle companies - hence the name - and those are made up of primarily Tactical Squads. Then, two of the reserve companies are completely comprised of Tac Squads. So, the most common Space Marine unit on the battlefields of the 41st millenium are going to be Tac Squads.
The other instances you mentioned are not going to be very frequent occurrences, but you can still theme lists around them with Troops-majority rules. If you're required to take, say, 40% Troops, that still leaves you 60% of your points to spend elsewhere. Close quarters fighting? Spend the points on Terminators and Veterans, with the Troops there to secure the ground they've taken. Heavy armor breakthrough? Spend the other 60% on Vindicators and Predators, with the Troops there to support them - and they can be in Razorbacks to support the overall theme. Vanguard force? Same thing. And, quite frankly, Assault Squads could probably just be a Troops choice. Scouting force? Easy. Scouts are Troops.
There is absolutely no reason one can't make a themed list around a Troops requirement with some actual bite. You many not be able to squeeze in each and every thing you want the list to have, but quite frankly list building is more fun when you have challenges to work around. You get to test yourself, to see how clever you are at balancing out what you have to take against what you want, and to see how you can make the compulsory stuff fit what you have in mind in a meaningful way, rather than just being a minor tax that sits around in the backfield.
Plus, games get more interesting when you actually have to take a lot of Troops. You can't always rely on being able to hit your opponent's best units with your best units. Sometimes your Troops have to try and carry their weight. Maneuvering becomes more important, because you're trying to match up units with appropriate targets, or bring more Troops to bear on something tough because your killer units are engaged elsewhere. It allows for asymmetrical matchups to happen in a game that is balanced overall. That's a lot more interesting than everyone just taking max killer units and running them at each other.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/14 14:42:15
All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
2016/12/14 14:51:29
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
2016/12/14 14:53:43
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
Oh i know its not the way to balance, But somehow i imagine tradito would be really satisfied with it deep down. Although i suppose i did leave missile launchers and flamers out. but we all make sacrifices this way
2016/12/14 15:03:37
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
Oh i know its not the way to balance, But somehow i imagine tradito would be really satisfied with it deep down. Although i suppose i did leave missile launchers and flamers out. but we all make sacrifices this way
woah woah, MLs are op as feth! Remember, using cover is SHENANIGANS! We can't have ANY of that, so a weapon that wounds on a 2+ AND ignores a marine's armor? No way man, no way.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/12/14 15:09:14
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
My biggest issue with GW's rules is the lack of internal balance. Everytime a codex comes out and I browse through it, I can just completely ignore about 25% of the codex because it's so, so much worse than anything else.
It's either overcosted, redundant, or isn't supported properly by the rest of the codex. Then you have the cream of the crop, the 25% of the codex that is just so necessary, so points efficient, so obviously pushed that if you don't take them in games you feel like you are handicapping yourself.
Then the other 50% tends to be just fine, if you take them you won't feel bad and generally they'll have their good and bad matchups.
From a Tyranid players' perspect there are a few units that have been frustratingly left on the shelf over the series of several codexes:
I use to be a power-gamer and really competitive player. I wasn't a rules lawyer, but whenever I played I would only play what I thought to be the best army was at the time, and I would spam it's best units.
I was that guy who had that Space Marine army with a generic name paint scheme. One week they were Blood Angels, then maybe Space Wolves. Or Chaos, or regular Space Marines, or Dark Angels.
From a really competitive min-max perspect, the game became frustrating. I got annoyed with GW with their inability to really properly points cost things. I got so annoyed anytime a codex would get released I would go through the books and modify points costs to try and make sure every unit was appropriately costed.
I can still do this, but I don't. I now just take cool models that do neat things and I put the most work into. My local group has even gone so far to do some house rules for units that almost never see play. And it's fun and I fell in love with the game again.
But part of me still resents GW rules writers for being unable to balance their game. Why isn't there basic playtesting done for every codex? Why don't they accept advice from known good, competitive players? I think their attitude of "our games aren't made to be competitive" is just a cop-out from them. So people will be happy with the fact that they can't seem to properly balance their codexes.
I get it, if you want a hard fought competitive tournament environment, tabletop war-gaming is probably not your avenue. Try eSports (DOTA, Starcraft, CS:GO, etc) or maybe Magic: The Gathering. But I still want GW to try and make Warhammer as balanced and tight as possible, and sometimes I just don't think they even bother.
2016/12/14 15:59:14
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Gunzhard wrote:
Yeah seriously if we are sticking to canon you're right... just IG and Orks... I get the point you are trying to make though. But here's the thing. Using Space Marines as an example... the way a chapter is organized, and exactly how many Tactical marines and Devastator marines, squads and companies etc, is not necessarily reflective of the "most typical fighting forces"; read through any SM codex.
Nearly every space marine chapter has tons of tactical marines throughout all of their battle companies - but space marines don't fight that way where they send the entire chapter and its mass organization of tactical marines into battle. This, also being a narratively driven game, to varying degrees anyway, lends itself perfectly to situations where just Scouting type elements might be fighting, or just heavy Armour, or just close-quarters (terminator) fighters, or just elite vanguard units, or some odd mix of several different elements.
In a world where tournament players insist on fielding Sisters of Silence and Custodes, Space Marines must adhere to some narrow vision of just tactical marines? ...please.
No, Space Marines are not the only army that should have to take a lot of Troops. Every faction should have to take Troops-majority lists, because Troops are supposed to be the most numerous and common units on the battlefield.
Space Marines may not generally go into battle as an entire chapter very often, but their main fighting forces are the battle companies - hence the name - and those are made up of primarily Tactical Squads. Then, two of the reserve companies are completely comprised of Tac Squads. So, the most common Space Marine unit on the battlefields of the 41st millenium are going to be Tac Squads.
The other instances you mentioned are not going to be very frequent occurrences, but you can still theme lists around them with Troops-majority rules. If you're required to take, say, 40% Troops, that still leaves you 60% of your points to spend elsewhere. Close quarters fighting? Spend the points on Terminators and Veterans, with the Troops there to secure the ground they've taken. Heavy armor breakthrough? Spend the other 60% on Vindicators and Predators, with the Troops there to support them - and they can be in Razorbacks to support the overall theme. Vanguard force? Same thing. And, quite frankly, Assault Squads could probably just be a Troops choice. Scouting force? Easy. Scouts are Troops.
There is absolutely no reason one can't make a themed list around a Troops requirement with some actual bite. You many not be able to squeeze in each and every thing you want the list to have, but quite frankly list building is more fun when you have challenges to work around. You get to test yourself, to see how clever you are at balancing out what you have to take against what you want, and to see how you can make the compulsory stuff fit what you have in mind in a meaningful way, rather than just being a minor tax that sits around in the backfield.
Plus, games get more interesting when you actually have to take a lot of Troops. You can't always rely on being able to hit your opponent's best units with your best units. Sometimes your Troops have to try and carry their weight. Maneuvering becomes more important, because you're trying to match up units with appropriate targets, or bring more Troops to bear on something tough because your killer units are engaged elsewhere. It allows for asymmetrical matchups to happen in a game that is balanced overall. That's a lot more interesting than everyone just taking max killer units and running them at each other.
Not going to be very frequent occurrences? ...have you read the fluff side of ANY SM codex ever? ...they almost never fight as entire 'battle companies' unless they're facing apocalypse level events like a Hive fleet arrival for example. And again, this is a narratively driven game, ...scouting missions could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, an Armoured only / tank battle phase (or entire battle) could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, sometimes the entire battle is just aerial assaults and bombing, etc etc etc... if your vision of imaginary space battles is just troops against troops - well you're in luck, you can do that too.
And again, just because an army or space marine chapter is organized in such a way doesn't necessarily reflect, per the fluff, how they approach each battle. Now that space marines get free rhinos we see battle companies everywhere and I certainly wouldn't call that balanced or fun or interesting.
I've played every edition of this game and I certainly wouldn't agree that the heavy Troop driven editions were "more interesting", nor do I see that as any sort of qualifier for balance. Though I agree we do need better balance. Simply nerfing a few OP units would go a long way for starters.
And again, you can field Custodes in this game, why limit Space Marines or other armies to some narrow idea of troop-battles.
So my imperial guard regiment made entirely of tanks, with no infantry of any kind in it shouldn't exist in game. Despite it being made explicitly clear in the fluff this is how guard regiments operate. Entirely focused on one aspect and not having support from within the regiment itself. They have to take from other regiments to fill their weakness. But I guess that would be deemed as ally shenanigans and be too op? And I can't use forge world list because it too is op. And formations are op so I can't do it that way. Guess we'll have to rewrite the fluff then, but that couldn't end well (see necron rewrite) so what do we do?
2016/12/14 16:35:51
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
pumaman1 wrote: All models in the game are now ws4 bs4 s4 t4 i4 LD8 3+ armor and 10 points.
the only 2 weapons are bolters, and bolters
for 5 points you can buy a chainsword and bolt pistol.
Now every army you bring has a 50/50 shot of winning prior to tactics.
Wraithknight, no problem, only t4 3+
RIptide, no problem, only t4 3+
Imperial knight, no problem only t4, 3+
Grot, no problem, only t4 3+
True balance
and awful
That's not the way to balance. See: Starcraft.
Starcraft just is not a comparable game. Every player starts off with nothing and builds up trying to counter and outplay there opponents. In Warhammer you have to spend all your resources blind to your opponents and try your best to bring the tools to deal with everything. It would be comparable if starcraft started with a set number of minerals, and had to spend everything before ever getting to see what your opponent is buying. Obviously you would try to make an army that can handle as much as possible. Then traditio would come along and complain that he cannot win with his army of only marines, because he likes marines and he does not like medics, and it is totally unfair that lurkers can just kill all of them with zero counter play because he doesn't want to take detection because it is not a marine.
2016/12/14 17:12:41
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Not going to be very frequent occurrences? ...have you read the fluff side of ANY SM codex ever? ...they almost never fight as entire 'battle companies' unless they're facing apocalypse level events like a Hive fleet arrival for example. And again, this is a narratively driven game, ...scouting missions could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, an Armoured only / tank battle phase (or entire battle) could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, sometimes the entire battle is just aerial assaults and bombing, etc etc etc... if your vision of imaginary space battles is just troops against troops - well you're in luck, you can do that too.
And again, just because an army or space marine chapter is organized in such a way doesn't necessarily reflect, per the fluff, how they approach each battle. Now that space marines get free rhinos we see battle companies everywhere and I certainly wouldn't call that balanced or fun or interesting.
I've played every edition of this game and I certainly wouldn't agree that the heavy Troop driven editions were "more interesting", nor do I see that as any sort of qualifier for balance. Though I agree we do need better balance. Simply nerfing a few OP units would go a long way for starters.
And again, you can field Custodes in this game, why limit Space Marines or other armies to some narrow idea of troop-battles.
I don't think the game needed Custodes, but GW wanted to put them out, so we have them now. If they float your boat, then fine. I don't see why that has anything to do with whether or not the game should require lists with an actually significant amount of Troops.
I already addressed how you can build a list themed around a scouting force or armored task force, so those examples are weak. The game is not designed around bombing runs, nor do Space Marine players really have the units for that kind of thing, so I don't see how that's relevant, but if two players want to set that up as a special scenario, I don't see how normal rules requiring actually significant amounts of Troops would hinder them in any way.
The fluff in dexes usually only devotes a paragraph or two, or at most a page or two, to battles or even entire campaigns. As such, those descriptions usually only depict what a named character and maybe one or two elite squads were doing. It simply doesn't have the space to devote to what the entire force is doing. That doesn't mean there aren't rank-and-file units in those battles performing their roles though. Plus, not every fringe example needs to be rules-supported. I've read some fluff about all-Land Raider forces fighting engagements. That doesn't mean we need rules allowing a player to play an all-Land Raider army. Again, players are free to set up special one-offs outside the sanctioned rules.
Because GW hasn't written into the rules requirements that players play lists that are representative of their factions' typical fighting forces, they've instead had to bribe players into it with formation and detachment bonuses. That's another way to go, but what it's done is turned Space Marines into a horde army - because other players are free to build deathstars, or spam power units, in order for anything resembling a SM battle company to be competitive, it has to put more units on the board than an opponent can easily deal with, even with a cheesed-out list. I don't like how GW did the battle company formations, but without the free transports and detachment-wide ObSec, there's no way a list comprised of units you'd find in a battle company would ever be competitive in the current environment.
If everyone had to take a significant chunk of Troops, it would, in fact, improve the balance of the game, if only because it would go some way towards flattening out the balance curve - everyone would have less points to spend on power units. Also, it's been my experience over the last couple years that a 40% Troops requirement does, in fact, make for much more balanced games across a decent variety of armies. Having Custodes or whatever else wouldn't bother me if such a requirement were written into the game. You want a squad of Custodes? If you have your X amount of Troops, that's fine with me. You want to play all-Custodes? Special one-off time.
Surely we're in a really good place at the moment as far as list building goes. We've got the choices to run anything from just Tac Marines and fluffworthy extras led by a Captain and mounted in Rhinos to an army composed only of Mega Nobz. We've got the freedom to do any extreme and everything in between, which I think is great. The old way of only ever HQ + 2 troops minimum is unrepresentative of a lot of fluff (canon and head varieties). If you want to play with more troops in your games you're able to do so within the current confines of the rules, you can even set that as a personal rule amongst your gaming group but most people are enjoying the freedom that current list building involves. The problem doesn't lie with the force organisational charts (though the power disparity between the bonuses they provide could do with being looked at) it's to do with the imbalance between codexes and the units inside them.
2016/12/14 18:34:25
Subject: Re:Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Freedom isn't some sort of end-all be-all of game design. I have unlimited freedom when playing green army men in a sandbox, but of course I choose to play a wargame which has rules and restrictions.
Part of that is list building, which GW has jumped the shark. Its complicated, poorly balanced, and arguably less fluffy than it was previously with the way allies work and are constantly used.
The solution to the old HQ+ 2 troops being 'unfluffy' (it wasn't unfluffy, just a little restrictive) wasn't to scrap it entirely, it was to make troops more interesting and have methods of altering what troops you have. A great example was the old Marine list where a Captain on a bike would make bike squads troops. Apply the same logic to most other unit types and you can have a somewhat restrictive, yet simple and fluffy solution without jumping the shark entirely to the mess of allies and formations/detachments we have now.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2016/12/14 18:54:49
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Not going to be very frequent occurrences? ...have you read the fluff side of ANY SM codex ever? ...they almost never fight as entire 'battle companies' unless they're facing apocalypse level events like a Hive fleet arrival for example. And again, this is a narratively driven game, ...scouting missions could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, an Armoured only / tank battle phase (or entire battle) could happen in nearly every encounter a chapter faces, sometimes the entire battle is just aerial assaults and bombing, etc etc etc... if your vision of imaginary space battles is just troops against troops - well you're in luck, you can do that too.
And again, just because an army or space marine chapter is organized in such a way doesn't necessarily reflect, per the fluff, how they approach each battle. Now that space marines get free rhinos we see battle companies everywhere and I certainly wouldn't call that balanced or fun or interesting.
I've played every edition of this game and I certainly wouldn't agree that the heavy Troop driven editions were "more interesting", nor do I see that as any sort of qualifier for balance. Though I agree we do need better balance. Simply nerfing a few OP units would go a long way for starters.
And again, you can field Custodes in this game, why limit Space Marines or other armies to some narrow idea of troop-battles.
I don't think the game needed Custodes, but GW wanted to put them out, so we have them now. If they float your boat, then fine. I don't see why that has anything to do with whether or not the game should require lists with an actually significant amount of Troops.
I don't think Custodes needed to be in the game either - but people wanted them, like Sisters of Silence and Terminators and heroes etc etc, because they are interesting.
The great variety is what makes this game so much more appealing to me than Flames of War for example. But look back at previous wars or modern warfare, yes the bulk of nearly every army on earth is made up of troops/infantry, but that is not necessarily reflective of how combat is "most often" approached, I'd say logically, it'd be even less so in futuristic, imaginary warfare, but the beauty of 40k is - you can treat it however you like.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: I already addressed how you can build a list themed around a scouting force or armored task force, so those examples are weak. The game is not designed around bombing runs, nor do Space Marine players really have the units for that kind of thing, so I don't see how that's relevant, but if two players want to set that up as a special scenario, I don't see how normal rules requiring actually significant amounts of Troops would hinder them in any way.
The fluff in dexes usually only devotes a paragraph or two, or at most a page or two, to battles or even entire campaigns. As such, those descriptions usually only depict what a named character and maybe one or two elite squads were doing. It simply doesn't have the space to devote to what the entire force is doing. That doesn't mean there aren't rank-and-file units in those battles performing their roles though. Plus, not every fringe example needs to be rules-supported. I've read some fluff about all-Land Raider forces fighting engagements. That doesn't mean we need rules allowing a player to play an all-Land Raider army. Again, players are free to set up special one-offs outside the sanctioned rules.
So any battle that's not a Troop-battle is a "fringe example"? ...says you, have you read any of the campaign books? And for the record we actually do have Aerial combat rules however unpopular, and GW did make rules allowing an All-LandRaider (Spearhead) at one point - but beyond that IG can field all tanks now, Blood Angels can and often send elements of their 1st company (not troops) into battle alone etc etc... Your "troop battle" can be a special one-off if you want. Heck Aeronautica Imperialis is in the very newest Codex.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Because GW hasn't written into the rules requirements that players play lists that are representative of their factions' typical fighting forces, they've instead had to bribe players into it with formation and detachment bonuses. That's another way to go, but what it's done is turned Space Marines into a horde army - because other players are free to build deathstars, or spam power units, in order for anything resembling a SM battle company to be competitive, it has to put more units on the board than an opponent can easily deal with, even with a cheesed-out list. I don't like how GW did the battle company formations, but without the free transports and detachment-wide ObSec, there's no way a list comprised of units you'd find in a battle company would ever be competitive in the current environment.
If everyone had to take a significant chunk of Troops, it would, in fact, improve the balance of the game, if only because it would go some way towards flattening out the balance curve - everyone would have less points to spend on power units. Also, it's been my experience over the last couple years that a 40% Troops requirement does, in fact, make for much more balanced games across a decent variety of armies. Having Custodes or whatever else wouldn't bother me if such a requirement were written into the game. You want a squad of Custodes? If you have your X amount of Troops, that's fine with me. You want to play all-Custodes? Special one-off time.
Having a significant chunk of troops is in NO way a leveler of balance. It may be how you think the game should be played, or how you envision imaginary space battles, but having X amount of troops isn't going to fix anything. For some armies that is an enormous tax for others a massive boon, and we've been there before and 40k has yet to have a "balanced" set of codex or rules. Further some people don't want to field Troops; you do, so you can go ahead and do that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/14 19:30:39
I view this game as a hybrid between board gaming and role playing.
I realize tournament and competitive play may alter a person's stance, but at the same time i've never seen a game, outside of a generic shooter with no classes, be totally balanced, and even then there's disputes regarding certain maps, and auto team balance versus not.
So, should the game be perfectly balanced?
I voted no, because I think that is when you start to have watered down, homogenized choices. A better way to think about it, would be what if every single unit, across every single race/faction, were equivalent to space marines. In other words, each race was just a re-skinning of space marines. Would that be fun? Probably not...
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2016/12/14 19:17:21
Subject: Re:Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
I voted no, because I think that is when you start to have watered down, homogenized choices. A better way to think about it, would be what if every single unit, across every single race/faction, were equivalent to space marines. In other words, each race was just a re-skinning of space marines. Would that be fun? Probably not...
Ah! It must be time for this video.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
But that's not what it's claiming. It is claiming that elements of the design can be unbalanced, but taken holistically can still create a balanced environment.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: But that's not what it's claiming. It is claiming that elements of the design can be unbalanced, but taken holistically can still create a balanced environment.
"Element" is too broad for me. Yes, marines are different than zerglings which are different than zealot in Starcraft, but none are unbalanced. There is no way to have a balanced environment with the 295 pt WK.
2016/12/14 19:42:26
Subject: Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
The Wraithknight has deviated too far from the "Jedi curve" there's is no effective counter that does not require a disproportionate investment of resources.
It needs "patching," but it's existence doesn't somehow invalidate the theory of perfect imbalance, it is just an example where designers got it wrong.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The Wraithknight has deviated too far from the "Jedi curve" there's is no effective counter that does not require a disproportionate investment of resources.
It needs "patching," but it's existence doesn't somehow invalidate the theory of perfect imbalance, it is just an example where designers got it wrong.
There is simply no advantage to miscosting a unit. Any given unit might be undesirable because of meta shifts, but miscosting for the sake of miscosting is foolish.
2016/12/14 19:59:32
Subject: Re:Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
2016/12/14 20:29:48
Subject: Re:Should All In-Game Options Be Equally Points Efficient and Playable?
Traditio wrote: I have a consideration for those saying that making the game balanced would remove all strategy, etc. from the game (which is complete bull gak):
Consider the current alternative. How much strategy is involved when many games are determined simply by the lists that are being opposed to each other?
Many games can be resolved by the following procedure:
I write a list.
You write a list.
We trade lists.
We then decide a victor without even bothering to play, since one list obviously cannot beat the other list in the vast majority of circumstances.
Because that's totally a desirable state for the game.
I'm making the (strange, I know) suggestion that in-game decisions actually should matter. They should be the most important factor in deciding who wins, in fact.
Because your option doesn't add strategy, it just means you can literally throw things down and have a 50/50 chance to win?
I write a list
You write a list
We trade lists
Then we flip a coin, congratulations play again?
Because what sort of game can guarantee a 50/50 chance regardless of 20+ options within a book?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/14 20:29:57
It was mostly a silly, for the giggles game, but my buddy still cried cheese over it. Until I pointed out that the unit didn't move all game, and cost almost 400 points with Tiggy included. You can make most anything playable, if you consider their role and the available options.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
