Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 00:02:05
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
My local group is trying to get our games balanced a bit better as we have several players who are playing from 'weaker' codexes....cough orks cough. And a lots of the top tier stuff is proving exceptional frustrating for them cough war convocation cough.
So we are tinkering with the idea of coming up with a points cost for formations to bring balance back. (Maybe even having a negative cost for certain formations from the weaker dexes).
So a couple of Question to the community at large.
1. Has this be truly tried before? I would love to see some of the work other people have put in to get some ideas for myself.
2. Would you use the Cad as the baseline? Or something different? Would you make the Cad cost points but increase the points cost of tournament to compensate?
3. Would you add a modifier for formation point cost for Duplicate formations? What about ones from from other armies? Vary it according to the chart?
Very early stages but would love to see what people are thinking.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 00:08:00
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
You're a Khador player it looks like. Do Tier lists break WMH or come with point taxes? No, and in fact most aren't worth running due to requiring skornergestic unit combos.
What I'm more against are formations that are "just take multiples of the same unit, with no tax." You know, Riptide Wings, Heralds Anarchic, etc. If you see formation taxes, people will gradually gravitate towards running multiple CADs, or formations with less tax to benefit.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 00:20:52
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
1. I'm not trying to balance WM/H I'm trying to balance 40k.
2. Some tier list were quite broken in MKII but we only just got theme lists back in MKIII so we will have to see.
3. Regarding formation. That is kinda what I am trying to curb a bit here. Things that are too good like Rip-tide wing, War Convocation, Decurion, Galdius, Probably Castellans as well.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 00:27:02
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
The very simplest thing to try, and it's super easy, is to base things on a CAD at +0%. If a formation SOMEHOW is worse than a CAD, stick with +0%. For formations that are better than a CAD, add +5%, +10%, or +15% based on how unstoppably awesome you think the formation is. You're playing with friends, who are obviously willing to entertain the idea. Try a game or two with whatever you think is an appropriate modifier, and then change it if it's not right. Truthfully, you could do the same thing with Codices. You could, for example, put a +10% modifier on Eldar units [to pick on the obvious target] and then further apply formation taxation on top. For example, let's say you take an Astra Militarum unit in a CAD. Pay the basic price for that unit. Let's say you're playing an Eldar unit in the Aspect Warrior formation. +10% for being Eldar, +10% for being in a clearly better than CAD formation. So a unit of Eldar Ice Princes with the Icicle Blaster upgrade would normally cost 150 points, but because they're an Eldar unit and in the Aspect Warrior formation, they will now cost 150 x 1.20 = 180 points. It lets you play your cool formations of ball-breaking, but now you pay a premium for the cool rules you get. With friends, it's a great way to balance the game without having to change any of the rules that are available. Units can be crazy powerful, just pay the appropriate cost for them.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/16 00:28:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 00:32:21
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Eh, for each of those formations though, there are quite a few awful formations out there though. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone take a Daemonkin formation that wasn't the Gorepack for one.
War Convo isn't *that* broken, and you could argue that without it, AdMech is actually a pretty shoddy army overall...something about no dedicated transports, bikes, psykers, etc. Gladius could probably be amended to a 35-pt discount on transports rather than free transports, but meh.
I feel there are more immediate areas one should fix (2++ rerollable saves, D-proliferation, ITC Invisibility, etc) rather than subjectively deciding which formations are more broken than others.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 00:50:02
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Then go fix them. Put your effort into that. We're here playing with ideas about point cost for formations... per the title. You go play in a different sandbox if you don't want to play in this one.
To your post, however, if Daemonkin is worse than Gorepack, then it gets a lower modifier.
If Admech is crap on it's own, the codex value is +0% compared to a top-tier dex that would get a positive modifier. If being in the War Convo makes them barely playable, then it wouldn't be any better than a typical CAD, so 0% premium there as well. Truthfully, you're saying that unless you fix every single thing, it's not worth fixing one facet of a broken system.
This is an easy fix and his group is willing to try. Help out, or move along. "There's bigger problems, so ignore this one." isn't helpful.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 01:01:55
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Formations don't need a tax in points. We just need certain ones to have a tax in units.
For example, the Riptide Wing could have a tax of Pathfinders and only have the bonus so long as they are on the board and alive.
It requires more thought but it is a much better solution for problems.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 01:16:50
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Making the Riptide Wing a single unit of 3 Riptides for purposes of Coherency and being shot/assaulted/Maledictioned, but 3 units for purposes of Markerlight usage, VP loss, etc, would also be a other option. Saddle the formation with a notable drawback for its power rather than adding a point-modifier, whether flat or percentage-based.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 01:22:40
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Think I am going to avoid taxing codexs directly simply because how good a unit is varies greatly in single codex. Wraithknights are poorly costed along with warp spiders and scatbikes but aside form that the rest isn't so bad. I don't want players to think that I am targeting them directly.
So what do you think are the chief offenders? Automatically Appended Next Post: MagicJuggler wrote:Making the Riptide Wing a single unit of 3 Riptides for purposes of Coherency and being shot/assaulted/Maledictioned, but 3 units for purposes of Markerlight usage, VP loss, etc, would also be a other option. Saddle the formation with a notable drawback for its power rather than adding a point-modifier, whether flat or percentage-based.
Juggler I thank you for attempting to add to the discussion but we are trying to find a points based solution here not a set of rules changes. If you wish to help with that then I welcome it. If not I am going to have to ask you to start your own thread to discuss your ideas for changes.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/16 01:24:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 06:00:23
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Formations don't need a tax in points. We just need certain ones to have a tax in units. For example, the Riptide Wing could have a tax of Pathfinders and only have the bonus so long as they are on the board and alive. It requires more thought but it is a much better solution for problems. Except that, hypothetically, you shouldn't have to balance units like that. It's ok to have a ball-busting unit, so long as you take a POS unit? That isn't about thought, it's about making you take junk to offset the good, rather than simply fixing the cost of units to allow them to do what they do, at an appropriate cost. Whether or not you tax a codex is up to you, of course. It is my experience that nearly everything in the Eldar dex is better than its point value would indicate. At least, the stuff people take. I wouldn't know about Guardians or the Artillery Platforms, or the Aspect JB... but I can tell you a lot about the spectrum of Wraith Units, Scatter Bikes, Bike-Seers, Aspect Shrines, and the generally good parts of the Eldar codex. They could all use a bump. That's because my meta is highly competitive, even though we just play for bragging rights. If your Eldar player is "softer" then you wouldn't need to bump their codex value. I'm just saying, rather than assign individual unit bumps, you can put a blanket bump on the codex given an expected set of unit selections. Maybe impossible to do on a world-wide scale, but easy to do in a gaming group. Without significantly altering the existing rules, the simplest method to balance things is to alter points costs. No negotiating details of how to change rules. No creating new rules. No limiting existing possibilities. Simply the game, out of the box, but you "fix" the points for things. Admittedly, it breaks down when free stuff starts being thrown into the mix. But a Battle Company's free transports do help to make up for the fact that you have to take a lot of garbage units. Who plays Tacticals outside of a Battle Company, competitively? Nobody. So you "fix" tacticals by making them a lot cheaper if you buy in bulk... Imperial Guard style.  I think a 5% boost to their unit costs pretty much fixes them, though I'm not sure if you could play it at less than 1850, given the need for an Auxiliary on top of the Battle Company. Anyhow, best of luck. In my opinion, fixed pricing isn't the best option. Some formations have wide open unit choices, Decurion style. If you charge 100 points for a Decurion, then play a 1000 point game, that's not the same "factor" as a 100 point bump at 2000 points. That said! Small bumps, even 5%, add up quickly over the spread of a few units. A 5% bump knocks about 78 points off of a 1500 point army. I believe there are certainly unit / formation combinations that are worth 20% more than their base cost... but be careful not to go overboard. Even splitting the difference in "real" value to the base cost will make your games much more competitive. One player will still have an edge, but probably not so much that it can't be overcome. If you're serious about this, I'd ask your group what they consider to be the worst offenders, and then try to come to a consensus. Players will tend to under value, while opponents will tend to over value. Split the difference, try a game, and then make an adjustment if either party thinks it was the wrong call. Hypothetically, GW's R&D team should be doing this, but you know how that goes.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/16 06:02:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 06:48:49
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Pathfinders aren't a gak unit though. However, they would at least be a tax for the formation, so that you really payed for the formation. The reason Riptide Wing is an issue is because not only is there no tax unit, you also don't use an elite slot any Riptides you want!
So you fix the formations that way.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 07:05:53
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Formations were ment to drive sales. Formations are not ment to be balanced or fair at all.
|
In the Grimdark future of DerpHammer40k, there are only dank memes! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 09:09:49
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Auspicious Daemonic Herald
|
CadianGateTroll wrote:Formations were ment to drive sales. Formations are not ment to be balanced or fair at all.
And? Why doesnt that mean we should try and balance those formations
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/16 15:06:53
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
There's nothing inherently wrong with using an entire army of Riptides, any more than there's anything wrong with using an all-boyz Orc army or an all-Knight army. If the Riptide is appropriately costed.
It may not be fun to play against, and it may be a total rock paper scissors army, but that's allowed in all other facets of 40k these days, so have at it. Just pay the proper points.
For example, I hate playing against all Knight armies. Because it isn't fun. I'd have less of a problem facing all Riptides, because [I think] I could still wound them, potentially, with Lasguns. They're not literally useless, just close.
Assuming they cost what they should. I understand Formations are built to drive sales. As a player though, I don't have to take crappy rules just because, if I can find other players that don't want to take crappy rules just because. I'd prefer a game with more structure, but that's not 40k, and that's not what everyone wants. The next best solution is to charge what a unit is worth, and formation premiums are a good start.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/17 20:36:46
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets
|
CrownAxe wrote: CadianGateTroll wrote:Formations were ment to drive sales. Formations are not ment to be balanced or fair at all.
And? Why doesnt that mean we should try and balance those formations
Exactly. Just because we were given something flawed does not mean we can't or shouldn't fix it.
7e is one hell of a fixer-upper.
|
40k drinking game: take a shot everytime a book references Skitarii using transports.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/17 20:38:27
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
|
I'd give it a couple months. Formation point costs aren't new in 40k - used to be that way in the old apoc books. Plus, I am expecting some HARD AoS'ing of 40k, and AoS has formation points costs, so it follows that formation costs may well be a thing in the near future.
|
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/18 12:55:20
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Khadorstompy wrote:My local group is trying to get our games balanced a bit better as we have several players who are playing from 'weaker' codexes....cough orks cough. And a lots of the top tier stuff is proving exceptional frustrating for them cough war convocation cough.
So we are tinkering with the idea of coming up with a points cost for formations to bring balance back. (Maybe even having a negative cost for certain formations from the weaker dexes).
So a couple of Question to the community at large.
1. Has this be truly tried before? I would love to see some of the work other people have put in to get some ideas for myself.
2. Would you use the Cad as the baseline? Or something different? Would you make the Cad cost points but increase the points cost of tournament to compensate?
3. Would you add a modifier for formation point cost for Duplicate formations? What about ones from from other armies? Vary it according to the chart?
Very early stages but would love to see what people are thinking.
1) Briefly yes. Then we dumped entire 7th ed and switched to 2nd ed so became moot point. Still it's so obvious it's astonishing GW didn't have it from day 1. The only thing AOS did right.
2) We had first CAD free, multiples started to cost as well to prevent HQ+2 troop+max HS/elite/whatever. "Do I spend points to unlock another detachment or take some less optimal FA instead with free slots)
3) We didn't consider increasing cost per duplication no.
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/18 21:57:50
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Hey Khador, any feedback from your group?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 13:59:40
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
We are working on it. So far. Meh.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 14:41:18
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Paying points isn't a good fix. Requiring the purchase of "tax" units is. It means more sales for GW, more "fluffy" units see the tabletop, and that more investment is made for each formation other than just "those" units. It's a win/win for everyone. And this doesn't even have to be additional units, but rather restrictions that make you take additional models. Let's continue using the Riptide Wing as an example. Fluffwise, I can't really see other units belonging to this, but admittedly I haven't flipped though a Tau codex since their last one. However, 1 Riptide is not the max of the unit, nor is 3 Riptides. They have Drones. The Riptide Wing easily could have been 3 Riptide units, requiring 2 Drones be purchased for each Riptide. Not only does this add a fair few extra points, but Drones are considered a liability for Riptides, since 1 dying usually causes a Moral test. This would go a long way towards balancing that particular formation. -
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/19 14:43:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 14:47:58
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
The problem with formations is that they were a great idea for helping fluffy, thematic combos that are underpowered on their own. For example, mixed Dark Eldar forces can be great,but a fully Haemonculus list can have serious drawbacks, so a formation/detachment can work great. Unfortunately, GW seems to now hate the Dark Eldar, so their formations and detachment are a major suck-fest.
Meanwhile, the Space Marines get formations for things that are already powerful, that makes them even better at no cost (other than you buying more stuff). Worse though is that the things that actually need it, are still underpowered; for example the terminator formation isn't great for a terminator heavy force. Bikes can be taken in large quantities without using a bike formation, it's just a huge mess.
And that's what it comes down to; fixing formations is a nightmare because some of them are rubbish, others could be fixed by charging for them, but others are broken because codexes are broken. So while I like the idea of formations, given that GW has difficulties just getting the core books and ruleset balanced it probably wasn't a good idea to introduce them to the rules at all.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 15:13:41
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Haravikk wrote:
And that's what it comes down to; fixing formations is a nightmare because some of them are rubbish, others could be fixed by charging for them, but others are broken because codexes are broken. So while I like the idea of formations, given that GW has difficulties just getting the core books and ruleset balanced it probably wasn't a good idea to introduce them to the rules at all.
Quoted for truth. Have an exalt!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 15:52:43
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
Many moons ago, formations actually did come with a cost, in apoc iirc. Like the vindicator formation you can run I think cost like...idk I wanna say 150 point on top of the model cost?
The problem with the formation thing is, it's not a bad idea at heart, but they vastly unbalanced them and Imo don't belong in standard games.
It finally dawned on me some 4 weeks ago, who every wrote 7th Ed basically said "you know I really like the apoc games, let's use that as a template for standard games." And it's just muddled everything
I would muh rather see them do away with formations in non apoc games and just use 30ks rites of war where your HQ will modify the cad for you.
|
To many unpainted models to count. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 19:16:05
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Silly question...is the entire group seeking to balance games? If so the answer lies not in formations or changing costs but simply all having a sit down and agreeing not to be witches about making powerful lists.
If you play X, Y and Z and curbstomp everyone to oblivion...don't take so much X, Y and Z. You guys, as the players, are entirely in control of what you take to a game. Now, if you just have models you want to use but they're over-powered, add some points.
Within a game or two, people commonly know what is broken/over-powered, or far too cheap points-wise.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 20:17:53
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Build your lists using 30k rules. Formations are the worst part of the game.
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 21:15:37
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Lance845 wrote:Build your lists using 30k rules. Formations are the worst part of the game.
Wrong. Miscosted units are.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 21:50:53
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
So, is it Meh because you're having trouble coming to a consensus, because your efforts didn't go anywhere, because it doesn't seem to be worth the effort... Feedback, man!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/19 22:26:17
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
Little Rock, Arkansas
|
I suggest just nixing formations.
Our local group has a "speak up if you want a more competitive game including formations" clause for non-event games.
Plenty of people online cry about eldar after formations are gone, but the gap between eldar and the have nots is nowhere near as huge as the gap between the power formations and the have nots.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 22:28:12
20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/20 02:00:07
Subject: Re:Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
greatbigtree wrote:
So, is it Meh because you're having trouble coming to a consensus, because your efforts didn't go anywhere, because it doesn't seem to be worth the effort... Feedback, man! 
We spent most of the time trying to set up a campaign from IA:4 2nd edition.... we didn't get very far.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/01/20 07:33:07
Subject: Adding points costs to formations
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Galef wrote:Paying points isn't a good fix. Requiring the purchase of "tax" units is. It means more sales for GW, more "fluffy" units see the tabletop, and that more investment is made for each formation other than just "those" units. It's a win/win for everyone.
-
Nah having to take crap isn't good solution. Just see history of where that has led. 2x5 scouts to fulfil core tax etc. History has shown time and again crappy unit tax isn't good balancing method. Why you think it would work better here?
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
|