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.

For tournaments I would say
1) you can't take a duplicate detachment without first taking a different detachment.
2) limit points AND powerlevel.

So the game would be 2000 points with a max powerlevel of 100 and you'd need at least 4 detachments before you could have more than two of the same.

The best way ti rebalance the game is to rebalance points.

 Desubot wrote:

What army is super strong at basically highlander?

At least Marines, since they have five times as many units as anyone else, and most of them are pretty good.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
For tournaments I would say
1) you can't take a duplicate detachment without first taking a different detachment.
2) limit points AND powerlevel.

So the game would be 2000 points with a max powerlevel of 100 and you'd need at least 4 detachments before you could have more than two of the same.

The way you worded #1 doesn't force you to take 4 detachments before having 2 of the same, it forces you to take 1. Your wording is I cannot take a duplicate detachment without first taking a different detachment. So I take a Vanguard, now I cannot take a duplicate detachment unless I first take a different detachment, so I take a spear head, now I can take a vanguard again. You would need to word it as you cannot take a duplicate detachment unless you have taken every other available detachment. However, given most events capping at 3 detachments, you might as well just say, no duplicate detachments.

I think doing points and power level will result in very few effective army choices, it also benefits armies with a lot of upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Time for a WALL O TEXT:

Some of the reasons why even with this, the game seems skewed are due to the following:

1.) Multiple Choice FoCs. A lot of people don't realize or don't seem to remember that the old "CAD" foc was designed specifically to balance the armies. Namely your "troops tax" and "HQ tax" were suppose to be point sinks. Troops were always inherently worse than any other equivallent you might have in your army; that's because they're the bulk of your army. Back then (and I mean like early 4th ed) the few options that did shift something to the Troops section specifically noted that these were special organizations and were likely not as balanced as the main list (this occured in WHFB too, where it was even more restrictive on non-Core choices). The FoC shenanigans that started in 5th and the event that completely obliterated any semblance of the old FoC in 7th is one of the reasons why a lot more armies became "unbalanced". This trend has somewhat been mitigated in 8th, but until they go back to one unified, troop-centric FoC, I doubt the issue of spam will go away.

2.) The 0-1 and 1+ limits. These most people probably don't remember anymore, but on top of the above-mentioned troops-as-pointsinks, these were another layer on top of it all. Most of the problematic units, if they existed back then, often had the 0-1 limit applied. Conversely, a lot of units that people didn't want to field often had a 1+ minimum applied, to force you to field them. I really wish this would return, as it's a quick and simple way to cut down on people spamming certain units.

3.) Warhammer 40k is a skirmish level game; the introduction of flyers, superheavies and such also brought with them so many variables that it resulted in rules designed specifically to break the existing rules of the game (Strength D weapons). While this edition has done a good job of toning them back down, I still feel like Flyers and Superheavies should be moved into their own game outside of 40k; if everything is basically kept at the skrimish infantry level, there will be very few instances of two armies meeting each other and one having rules that make it basically immune to the other army.

A lot of this is rose colored glasses. The "combined arms" foc never really functioned well because not all troops were equally efficient. Some armies could spend almost nothing on throw away troops and then min-max everything else, some had really effective troops and so there was effectively no tax on their army, and some had crappy but expensive troops. This only balances out if the other things in those armies are balanced in such a way that the armies with super cheap troops have overcosted other stuff, those with good troops have less powerful other stuff, and those with crappy expensive troops have amazing other units.

The 0-1 units were not typically super broken units, so that was never a true balance mechanism.

I agree on scale being an issue, allowing full armies of super heavies was a mistake, imperial knights never should have been their own full army, I think allowing a few is ok, but full armies of those lead to skew lists and generally bad games. An easy fix to this would be eliminate the LOW and flyer detachments. Now superheavies (LOW) take up an entire detachment for 1 model, if you keep the 3 detachment max you cannot effectively build and all LOW army (at 2k points each would need to cost 666 points) and you would get no bonus command points. IF the flyer detachment were removed, they would be a 0-2 choice in each detachment (or take up a detachment as an auxiliary choice), this would make spamming flyers difficult because you would be required to take other choices to unlock them. But this assumes either becomes a huge problem. Those 2 FOCs along with Supreme command seem to me to be those most able to be abused for skew lists though.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

What army is super strong at basically highlander?

At least Marines, since they have five times as many units as anyone else, and most of them are pretty good.

But 90% of their power is stuck in non troop slots..

you are looking at mostly tacticals which are basic. sniper scouts which could be cool. inserters or whatever they are called being basicly a 10man in a 5 man body tactical.

there will be the occasional odd ball chapter that has weird troops i guess.

Their troops are far better than marine players give them credit for.

 Melissia wrote:
Their troops are far better than marine players give them credit for.

Well im not saying they are bad.

the initial premise was that restrictions on non troop slots would make strong armies stronger.

im trying to think of armies that are overly skewed into the troop section. especially those that do not need other slots to make them even better like conscripts being limited to a single commissar.

so far nids seem to be the only one.

The game JUST came out. I'd say we wait for a few months to get all playing out of the way before we decry it entirely unbalanced (which it isn't. Few things might need adjustments here and there but honestly I think this is the most reasonable the game has been in a long time).
That said, I'm not opposed to the idea of a side board. Something like 350 points you can bring into your list each time as a hard counter to something and junk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Their troops are far better than marine players give them credit for.

Yes and no.
Scouts have always been strong, as well as Biker troops (but that's not a thing anymore). The issue is that the Tactical Marine is no good, and can't be until the unit's role is actually defined. The reason other troops are better is because they're cheaper or you can kit them out for an actual defined role.

I've always been a fan of trying to do a reverse Skitarii thing, where you have the current way to load them out, but they gain the ability yo purchase an extra Heavy or Special Weapon at 10 strong. No matter how many rules you throw on something, damage output is going to be the main factor on choosing a unit (besides maybe speed).

 Desubot wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Their troops are far better than marine players give them credit for.

Well im not saying they are bad.

the initial premise was that restrictions on non troop slots would make strong armies stronger.

im trying to think of armies that are overly skewed into the troop section. especially those that do not need other slots to make them even better like conscripts being limited to a single commissar.

so far nids seem to be the only one.

Orks maybe? But they still really want big meks to flourish.

I mean even nids need their synapses creatures no?

(i haven't really dug that deep into them)

At the very least they benefit greatly from it from the discussions I've read. Haven't read their book tho.

I second the idea that getting points right can lead to a pretty well balanced game.

The problem was that games workshop never made points changes until they released a new rule book. Things that were obviously undercosted from day 1 were left unchanged (eg scat bikes and wraith knights).

With the new edition they seem to have made a pretty reasonable attempt at balancing points (at least compared with 7th), but it takes time, tournaments and lots of analysis to realise which units are truly the strongest. I'm not surprised there are miscosted things in 8th as they not only changed the points costs, but changed a lot of the rules that went with the previous units.

What we really need them to do is come back in a few months (or one year's) time and recost everything that is obviously undercosted or overcosted. AND they'd need to not change the actual rules at the time or they may as well throw out the established meta and start from scratch again.

They hinted that they might do this (it sounds like they might issue a generals handbook or issue new updated indexes in a year or two). I hope they do this!

They did just do that for AOS so its probably going to be a yearly thing which i have no issues with.

 Desubot wrote:
I mean even nids need their synapses creatures no?

(i haven't really dug that deep into them)

Warriors are troops now.

Anything else than watching how the meta develops and what GW does is pointless currently.

This happens every edition, gosh.

Much as Dakka likes to pretend the playtesters are all morons and that the handful of games they're played so far is enough to condemn 8th Edition as a clusterfeth, I choose to believe that the claim that generalist lists will take over in popularity as people get more comfortable with the game and don't need the crutch of spam lists, especially if missions are improved as it's already planned by the ITC guys.

Come back in 6 months and we'll see if things still need 'rebalancing' then.

 Desubot wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

What army is super strong at basically highlander?

At least Marines, since they have five times as many units as anyone else, and most of them are pretty good.

But 90% of their power is stuck in non troop slots..

you are looking at mostly tacticals which are basic.

Tactical Marines are friggen amazing. They're one of the most versatile units in 8th edition.

But why do you bring up Troops, that had nothing to do with limiting armies to one of any unit. Marines can easily take 3 different units in any non-Troops slot that is above average. Some armies can't.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

What army is super strong at basically highlander?

At least Marines, since they have five times as many units as anyone else, and most of them are pretty good.

But 90% of their power is stuck in non troop slots..

you are looking at mostly tacticals which are basic.

Tactical Marines are friggen amazing. They're one of the most versatile units in 8th edition.

But why do you bring up Troops, that had nothing to do with limiting armies to one of any unit. Marines can easily take 3 different units in any non-Troops slot that is above average. Some armies can't.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
for my club's narrative events we might be limiting lists to one unit of a type outside of troops.

want a stormraven? no problem you can field exactly 1 storm raven

want a land raider crusader sure enjoy that 1..

obviously not going to happen on our competitive events but keeping narrative events fun is pretty important to us

That only makes strong armies stronger, while doing nothing to address the base problem.

original quote.

narrative event stating they will limit lists to one unit slot outside of troops

you follow by saying it will make strong armies stronger

i ask which armies in "basically" highlander.

I dont think tactical squads are SUPER strong. they are fine but not nearly as good as any dedicated unit that does dedicated things in their respective slots.

I don't think the point is that Space Marines would be stronger in highlander than in standard, but that quite a few factions would be punished harder than they would be. This is because they have a huge unit roster, with a lot of role overlap.

For example, let's say they want an anti-infantry vehicle. They can take a Whirlwind, a landraider, a stormraven, a dreadnought, a predator, a thunderfire cannon, a stormtalon, a razorback, and a landspeeder. They may even be able to technically take multiples of some of those, depending on how you handle variants.

Meanwhile, the Adeptus Mechanicus for example would get one Onager Dunecrawler, one pair of Kastellan Robots, and... that's it. By the way, the Onager Dunecrawler is also the AdMech's best option for anti-tank and anti-air. Too bad you can only have one.

I'm sure you can see the difference there?

Or for an even more limited option:

Let's say a Sisters player wanted heavy support options.

They get one exorcist, and one squad of retributors, and that's it.

For Fast Attack options, they'd get one squad of seraphim, one squad of dominions, and that's it.

For elites, one squad of celestians, one squad of repentia, and that's it unless you count support characters.

They'd literally not be able to have as many units as any other army.

Certainly. if running super specific keyword limitations.

imperium has it lucky with access to a wide assortment of goodies.

no idea how it will work in the other lists.

Tau would probably have a lot of trouble.
Eldar are fine options wise.
orks? how well can they make an all commers

But ether way as you say it doesnt make strong armies stronger.

Orks would have problems. Their main troops choice is okay but needs support in order to function well, and that support generally comes from specific units that would hurt them with a limitation of only being able to take one.

Dark Eldar would run out of Raiders and Ravagers too. They're pretty boned in Highlander play.

Guard just go "Fine, I'll have a Leman Russ, a Leman Russ Commander, and Pask"

Not sure what you mean by Flatline / homogenize being an illusion. If you mean it's impossible well then yeah that's true but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shoot for it.

Yes it will be impossible but the simple fact is that would be the best way to balance the game and even though we won't be able to achieve that perfectly that doesn't mean we shouldn't try it. There are lots of things that are impossible. Something being impossible is not a reason to not do it. It's impossible to end sorrow we still try. It's impossible to end the hurt and the pain in the world but we still try. We don't do it because we think we can win we do it because it'll make the world a better place. We need to address the question what will make the game better not the question what can we achieve because if you we'll find it's much easier to make the world worse than better.

How to best balance 40K? Tweak the 4-6 things wrong with the 3rd Edition codices and rerelease that edition, with an Apocalypse expansion to cover flyers and superheavies.

The 400-600 things you mean.

Are you still here? Ugh, just play 30k or something.

It's spammy because people suck at 8th. Once people stop sucking spamming won't win events anymore.

I imagine at this point that a million people have already said this, but mission types and terrain really do go a long way toward balancing the game. Like that flyer-spam list would have been hard pressed to win something like the Scouring against any infantry heavy list, while winning a maelstrom mission would be nigh impossible. This isn't 7th edition where a single model can swoop onto an objective with 20 guardsmen on it and contest it. You really need the bodies to score points.

Unless there are no objectives.

Also, personally, really disappointed that they kept first blood and linebreaker in the game. The former punishes MSU and going second too much, and the latter is too easy to score with how mobile everything is in this game these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
hat army is super strong at basically highlander?

Any army that can take vehicles in squadrons.

Like, Imperial Guard would be an absolute terror in highlander format. You can easily cram 10+ tanks and artillery chassis into a list and not violate the highlander rules. meanwhile everyone else is trying to figure out how to stop 10 tanks when they can only take one HWS, or one devastator squad, etc.

The cherry on top would be that it's even fluffy. "Narrative game? Dude this is my 275th Bullshittium Armored Company!" Can't get any fluffier then that.

 Desubot wrote:
I mean even nids need their synapses creatures no?

(i haven't really dug that deep into them)

Synapse, although potent isn't as much of a dealbreaker as it was before. Now if you're out of range you take morale as normal and target the closest thing regardless - terrible for gaunt types but not so for big monsters - whereas before a Carnifex brood could literally destroy itself with an unlucky dice roll.