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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, that is possible as well! Though imho it's a very very very very very blurry line; e.g. I am playing an Inquisition list, but it's not mono-inquisition because it includes other Factions, but then, isn't my list choice and my faction choice the same thing?

Inquisition is a bit of a red herring here, it is a support faction just like the Assassins or the Ynnari characters, and doesn't need to be viable on its own (and GW should state that explicitly.)

I believe Inquisition should work with Inquisitors, Grey Knights, Assasins and Deathwatch, with the possibility for allyng SoB. But SoB are a much broader army with much more variety and wider personality than Anti-Daemon and Anti-Xenos marines. So they deserve be a full faction with much more options like SM or IG.
But even then you could expand the Inquisition options as I said before to make their proper faction even with support of those other factions.

 Galas wrote:
-Imperium
-Chaos
-Aeldari
-Tau
-Necrons
-Orks

Those are the factions of 8th by how the rules work. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe the sub-factions (Space Marines: Salamanders, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, White Scars, etc.., Imperial Guard: Cadian, Vostroyan, etc... and the rest) should be totally playable by their own.
But you are right, right now faction choice and army list is very blurry. But thats a problem by own GW making. They should be the ones to fix it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your point 1) I agree with, but you keep saying "the game"... that implies to me that you don't consider list-building or army choice as part of "the game." If you accept that those are part of the game, then your decisions during the game absolutely matter, because choosing a faction and building a list all happens during the game as it were. Now, if you think that army choice and list building are not part of the game, then your logic is consistent and I agree! That's awful.

List building should be part of the game in a way that you need to think what sort of units you should choose to deal with certain threats, and what kind of synergies can be achieved with your chosen units. But all units should be viable in some situations; there should be no units that are just simply worse (for their points) than other units; every unit should have a reason for existing.

What if that "reason for existing" is entirely narrative?

Like, say, you have a unit that is just flat worse than another unit, but is really good from a narrative perspective (e.g. Inquisitorial Acolytes, which I have tons of in my upcoming Inquisition list)?

Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

The army lists being blurry with your faction isn't exactly a problem, unless you see it as one. I, for one, am okay with it.

As for Inquisitorial Acolytes, there's no reason they should be bad, but they're always going to be a bit worse than just taking Imperial Guardsmen, because Guardsmen just have access to so much more stuff (same statline, but with orders, regimental doctrines, and the Troops battlefield role).

 Galas wrote:


Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

Exactly this. The point cost exist for a reason. Inquisitorial Acolytes are a cool unit, it's just that they're too expensive for what they do, and that is very easy to fix (they could also have veteran stats; I think that would actually make sense.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, that is possible as well! Though imho it's a very very very very very blurry line; e.g. I am playing an Inquisition list, but it's not mono-inquisition because it includes other Factions, but then, isn't my list choice and my faction choice the same thing?

Inquisition is a bit of a red herring here, it is a support faction just like the Assassins or the Ynnari characters, and doesn't need to be viable on its own (and GW should state that explicitly.)

So who gets to decide if a faction is viable on its own or not? The players? The competitive scene? GW? Should Grey Knights be viable on their own? Should Space Marines be viable without Imperial Guard?

Theres no reason for Inquisitorial Acolytes to not have their own special bonuses, equipement and rules compared with Imperial Guardsmen.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:


Why exactly should, Inquisitorial Acolytes, be bad in a competitive sense? They could have proper rules and point cost and be both a competitive and narrative option.

Exactly this. The point cost exist for a reason. Inquisitorial Acolytes are a cool unit, it's just that they're too expensive for what they do, and that is very easy to fix (they could also have veteran stats; I think that would actually make sense.)

Even if you gave them IG veteran stats, do you think they would compete with actual IG veterans?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So who gets to decide if a faction is viable on its own or not? The players? The competitive scene? GW? Should Grey Knights be viable on their own? Should Space Marines be viable without Imperial Guard?

Obviously GW decides that and I think they should be more transparent about that. I don't think anyone expects Officio Assasorinum to be a viable faction on its own either. Inquisition has couple of units, and in the fluff any larger 'Inquisition army' will contain elements of other imperial forces; it is like the whole point of the Inquisition, that they can take command of any imperial assets. Though I feel their rules could reflect this better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Even if you gave them IG veteran stats, do you think they would compete with actual IG veterans?

If they can't then their point cost should reflect that, how hard can this to be to understand?

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So who gets to decide if a faction is viable on its own or not? The players? The competitive scene? GW? Should Grey Knights be viable on their own? Should Space Marines be viable without Imperial Guard?

Obviously GW decides that and I think they should be more transparent about that. I don't think anyone expects Officio Assasorinum to be a viable faction on its own either. Inquisition has couple of units, and in the fluff any larger 'Inquisition army' will contain elements of other imperial forces; it is like the whole point of the Inquisition, that they can take command of any imperial assets. Though I feel their rules could reflect this better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Even if you gave them IG veteran stats, do you think they would compete with actual IG veterans?

If they can't then their point cost should reflect that, how hard can this to be to understand?

1) I agree, though I don't think it should be written into the rules anywhere - players should look to the narrative for guidance. It's clear from the narrative that Inquisition is a soup!

2) We're getting into details, but fundamentally, I believe Inquisitorial Acolytes should be worse than trained, veteran soldiers, while simultaneously not becoming a horde army.

Is army(faction) choice part of the game, yes.

Should it be: NO

All factions that are designed to work on their own (inquisition currently doesn't fit this descriptor, or SOS, or Custodes, though they should be IMO) should be balanced against one another assuming that the lists chosen from them are comparably competitive.

List building is definitely part of the game. However, I think it should be a smaller one. I don't think there should be "auto-takes." or "Never takes." all options should be viable, however, not all combinations of options should be. Now this will never happen, but that is the direction I would like to see the game move in.

Breng77 wrote:
Is army(faction) choice part of the game, yes.

Should it be: NO

All factions that are designed to work on their own (inquisition currently doesn't fit this descriptor, or SOS, or Custodes, though they should be IMO) should be balanced against one another assuming that the lists chosen from them are comparably competitive.

List building is definitely part of the game. However, I think it should be a smaller one. I don't think there should be "auto-takes." or "Never takes." all options should be viable, however, not all combinations of options should be. Now this will never happen, but that is the direction I would like to see the game move in.

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

If I said "Grey Knights aren't designed to work on their own as an army and therefore have significant engineered weaknesses that they cannot compensate for in a mono-list." then how would you reply?

Then GW should give a massive discount on GK models.

Martel732 wrote:
Then GW should give a massive discount on GK models.

You mean points wise or price wise, and if so, why?

Physical price wise because they are an inferior product. Also, if your point were to be true, they should not have their own codex.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

I'd prefer if they would just say so. But failing that the number of units available is a pretty good indicator.

Martel732 wrote:
Physical price wise because they are an inferior product. Also, if your point were to be true, they should not have their own codex.

Does having a codex mean you're supposed to be a mono-capability force? Will the Harlequins codex be like this? Or the Inquisiton/Imperial Agents/whatever codex?

And I don't think it's inferior, because winning is not the measure of a faction for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

I'd prefer if they would just say so. But failing that the number of units available is a pretty good indicator.

Sisters have, I think, 19? If you include everything?

HQ:
Celestine, Canoness

Troops:
Battle Sisters

Elites:
Celestians
Imagifier
Hospitaller
Dialogus

Fast Attack
Seraphim
Dominions

Heavy Support:
Exorcist
Retributor

Dedicated Transport:
Repressor
Rhino
Immolator

so... like 12? I must be missing some... anywyas, are they stand alone?

I'd argue that to have a codex, that force should stand as a mono-capable force. Otherwise, they should be packaged into a codex that makes them viable.

I don't care about GW's measures. So I stand by GK being an inferior product in your model of the game.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue that to have a codex, that force should stand as a mono-capable force. Otherwise, they should be packaged into a codex that makes them viable.

I don't care about GW's measures. So I stand by GK being an inferior product in your model of the game.

Then, perhaps, people won't buy GK. GW charges what the market will bear, after all, and imho game rules should not affect the price of a model (whether it does or not is an entirely different kettle of fish!).

So what codex would you package Inquisition into? Codex: Adepta Sororitas for the Ordo Hereticus? Codex: Grey Knights for the Ordo Malleus? Codex: Ordo Xenos with the Deathwatch?

Probably take all the little Imperial wannabes and put them all together. I'd put BA/DA/SW in with vanilla marines, too.

Martel732 wrote:
Probably take all the little Imperial wannabes and put them all together. I'd put BA/DA/SW in with vanilla marines, too.

Fair enough! Then if that happens, I'll agree that having a codex = this army should be mono-competitive.

As it stands, though, things are not like that. So how do you decide if an army should be able to fight on its own?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sisters have, I think, 19? If you include everything?

HQ:
Celestine, Canoness

Troops:
Battle Sisters

Elites:
Celestians
Imagifier
Hospitaller
Dialogus

Fast Attack
Seraphim
Dominions

Heavy Support:
Exorcist
Retributor

Dedicated Transport:
Repressor
Rhino
Immolator

so... like 12? I must be missing some... anywyas, are they stand alone?

Considering that they've multiple options for most slots (except LoW), seems pretty decent stand alone for me. (I think hey have flyers via FW) If they had plastic models and proper army traits and relics, I'm sure they'd be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Probably take all the little Imperial wannabes and put them all together. I'd put BA/DA/SW in with vanilla marines, too.

I think the 7th edition 'Imperial Agents' book was a fine concept, though the execution was just a lazy copy-paste job. But a book of minifactions you can use to add to your Imperial armies if fine. I guess they could do similar book for Eldar containing the Ynnari and the Harlequins.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Is army(faction) choice part of the game, yes.

Should it be: NO

All factions that are designed to work on their own (inquisition currently doesn't fit this descriptor, or SOS, or Custodes, though they should be IMO) should be balanced against one another assuming that the lists chosen from them are comparably competitive.

List building is definitely part of the game. However, I think it should be a smaller one. I don't think there should be "auto-takes." or "Never takes." all options should be viable, however, not all combinations of options should be. Now this will never happen, but that is the direction I would like to see the game move in.

How do you know whether a faction is designed to work on it's own right now?

If I said "Grey Knights aren't designed to work on their own as an army and therefore have significant engineered weaknesses that they cannot compensate for in a mono-list." then how would you reply?

I would agree because I don't think they were originally designed as a stand alone army and lack the depth and breadth of choices. I have previously advocated for rolling several imperial factions together to make for more complete factions. I like the old daemon and witch hunter style books (or even the 5th ed GK codex) because they included more options for those armies. Personally I would use the inquisition to flesh out factions like GK, Deathwatch, sisters and include in the Inquisition things like the custodies, SOS, assassins.

Then if you want to Run Mono GK you are knowingly giving up options in your own book. Then if GW wants these to factions to stand alone they should flesh out their model line/ unit selections.

GK have very few actual units they have what 1 fast attack option.

As for the way things are now, i guess moni-viability has to be empirically determined.

Any discussion of balance aside, Because just spam the most OP unitin the codex is not truly list bulding. Army choice is important for what kind of choices are on offer but shouldn't be a deciding factor in chance to win a game, or codices should be externally balanced.

List building as in: Read your codex and find interesting combo's, cover weaknesses ,and building out a working cohesive force. That should definitely be a part of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is listbuilding and army choice a part of the game?
...
Now if we zoom out one more step, army choice affects the list options one has: e.g. I want to play mono- Ordo Hereticus Inquisition. This means that I will not likely win a tournament, even if I am 100% the best listbuilder ever and 100% the best player ever, simply because the faction lacks options.

I recognize that there are many many many many factors that go into army choice (aesthetics, narrative (in my case), money, emotional investement, etc etc.) that are divorced from the purely competitive element, but if we're abstracting enough...

... wouldn't a player's choice of army be part of "player skill at Warhammer" all other things being equal?

(This is part of the reason I believe I am not a good warhamer player (well, that and I'm also not good at listbuilding or playing!): My army choices, even when I decide to start a new project, are almost always sub-par.)

I think you're missing the answer to your question because you've missed something in your defintion of the problem - Is having "fun" dependant solely on winning? For those who answer "Yes", then you are correct in your assumptions that chosing the optimal models from the optimal faction is the only consideration since nothing else matters. Given that 40k is a very silly hobby for someone who has no concern with the sundry other factors involved with building an army beyond what the mathhammer says is best, it's safe to assume that most* people will be somewhere on the sliding scale of WAAC'er vs Casual Scum Winning is the only thing that matters vs I have fun just putting my models on the table.

List-building is a skill, possibly the most important skill and, due to the nature of the game, can often be where games are won or lost, though there are more subtleties to it in that you have not only the "best" units, but you also need to consider not only how they interact with each other, but how they will interact with your opponents forces. No point bringing a plethora of lascannons, no matter how great they are against a tank army if you're facing a green tide. You also run into the issue of "borrowed skill" where people who lack the list-building skills get outside help. That can be as overt as directly copying the latest tournament winners build, requesting peer review on your list here on the forums or asking your opponent what you could have done better after a game. All are using other peoples efforts to improve your own army beyond your skill level, though usually only the copy/paste type is looked down upon.

Army selection, again, like list-building, can often be where games are won or lost, due to simple codex imbalance (see Tau vs DE in 6/7th for extreme example). However, the reason why it's not a "skill" is because either you care enough about winning that list-building declares what army you will take (because it's the "best") and therefore there is no choice to make or you have enough consideration for how you derive your "fun" that the various other aspects of the army mean that the equation says that maximum "fun" is achieved when you play the army you like (for whatever reason). What's the point of a hobby is you don't get any enjoyment out of it, especially if, as with many hobbies, time spent playing is relatively small against time spent preparing to play?

It's the same as asking why people don't drive to work in formula 1 cars. Yes, they'd get you there the quickest, but it ignores the multitude of other factors that makes it impractical. You could probably distil everything down to an equation (if you didn't mind assigning arbitrary values to non-quantifiable things): Fun = ([army effectiveness as % of optimal army**] * [enjoyment derived by winning]) + [enjoyment derived by painting] + [enjoyment derived by tactical decisions being correct] + ... + [enjoyment derived by adherence to fluff standards]***
You basically decide how important only running the "best" units, regardless of faction or personal bias is by solving to maximise the "Fun" value. In your example of running Armoured Company and getting repeatedly stomped, your equation would have been high on being able to put tanks on the field with low emphasis on anjoyment derived by winning (thereby making the army effectiveness % nigh irrelevant).

As to your follow up "why do people (like me!) who make it less of a priority get upset when people who make it a much higher priority beat the tar out of them?", Only you can answer that, but if I had to guess, it's human nature to not like losing, and even less when the contest wasn't "fair" to begin with, doubly so if you think it is fair when you enter. The whole premise of points is that 2 forces are meant to be equal and a game will be fair/balanced/even with both players skill (and a bit of RNG) deciding the outcome. Unfortunately, that premise is flawed because points aren't balanced and there are very clear cases where units are too good for their point/exceptionally bad for their points, however, points are how we have decided to play, and thus, you feel that equal points values should mean an even playing field, even if you know subconciously that the forces arrayed against each other are not actually equal at all.

It all boils down to playing against like-minded people since I suspect that what the majority of us want is to have good, close games where win/loss is decided by player skill during the game, not stacking the deckto the point where the outcome is almost predetermined.

*Not all, there are some people who will be at the extreme ends of the spectrum, as with anything else
** Where the value of the "optimal" army = 1
*** Where the total value of the various "enjoyment" categories = 1

I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game. If all unit entries had great internal codex balance, I feel like any two lists paired with generals of equal measure, playing a well designed mission should have an even chance of winning. However internal balance in codex is poor at best. Durning 7th ed I played a single mutilator once in a while in lists I would build just to vary my CSM lists. Players would often ask what the model was because no one ever played them they were so bad. Compared with obliterators which were virtually the same price and performed adequately in the same role AND were great at shooting, there was no reason to take a mutilators ever. They are still rubbish in 8th ed.

I also feel that balance between codex is terrible, though better so far in 8th than in previous editions. Eldar have been noticeabley OP in 6th with their wave serpent spam. Anyone could, and did go out and buy six wave serpents, some wraith knights and some D Scythes and they could easily annihilate players of much greater skill. So, some would claim that the army you choose is also emblematic of a good player. I would argue the opposite. That players who require a broken army to ensure that they win are not skilled at all, rather they are seeking any crutch they can to prove themselves.

Just my .02$

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

Sorcererbob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

The formations in 7th were basically "pre-made lists", and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Sorcererbob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I feel like list building is a big part of the game, perhaps more so than it should be in a balanced game.

I agree, and it's been an ongoing debacle for GW for more than 2 decades. Maybe the solution is for GW to release some pre-made balanced lists for competitive play? This makes it more like the "default" mono-colour decks that you can buy for MtG. From a sales perspective, it allows them to bundle the premade armies.

Some would argue that all of the fun is in making a list; my suggestion wouldn't stop you from making a list - it would just mean that you would put balance at risk if you are building your own.

The formations in 7th were basically "pre-made lists", and I don't think anyone wants to go back to that.

Formations were a great idea that was terribly implemented. I'd love to go back to them - if they were handled well.

Army choice and list building are certainly a part of the game, both competitive or otherwise.

Yet even with two equally skilled players, I don't think there's a single all conquering list because at any level of competitiveness it's still a game of rock, paper, scissors, further swayed by the dice gods.

The only way of getting close to perfect balance is to put two identical lists on a symmetrical battlefield in mirrored deployment and players alternate taking one action with each unit which are determined not by dice but set outcomes. Then we might as well paint one side black, the other white, and call it '40k Chess'.

I love the almost infinite options and randomness (within reason) of 40k - I'd say the inherent imbalance that brings is really unavoidable, and even in many cases a part of the fun?