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.

...so basically a really round-about system of points except with way more caveats.

You would just create an extra layer of points. Might as well just change points and keep it simple.

Usually occam's razer is a good thing in game design.

Well the thing is you change pts it effects the army someone can take. Oh your fellblade is now 200pts more... i wont be taking that it'll gather dust it dont fit with my model collection. Oh cultists are now 6pts each... but if i take 10 why am i getting an increase because when spammed they are so much better... its not balance its juggling

same thing with nerfs, oh now my dark reapers suck... they aint worth taking and now X is better because no one takes these anymore... now X is good lets nerf that or pts change it.

With straight pts it does not reflect a game/army or matchup. Is a cultist worth 4pts? probably costed ok. Is an army of 120 of them with abby making them all fearless and re-rolling to hit still making them worth 4pts each? probably not.

If there was some layer ontop of an army that was clear and added to a VP/CP reward system you can still take the army you want but if it goes up against a lesser list they have a bonus.

The object is to nerf without crushing. Chop the tallest trees down to the level of other trees, not down to the dirt.

Are there weaknesses to a straight point system? Of course, some synergies carry so much worth not really calculated in that cost. But I think what people are arguing (and I'd agree) is that layering another system on top of the existing one measuring the strength of armies is only going to complicate it further. It might also become more unblanced since it creates even more combinations and I guess "meta-synergies" to think of. Surely whatever system used to measure worth outside of just points would also be susceptible to flaws and those flaws would be taken advantage of, same as points. Except now you have another thing to worry about.

 LexOdin9 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

Of course you are free to believe gw tries for balance. You just forget gw is company with priority on profit. Balance goes against that

That literally makes no sense. Balance is exactly what they should want. If everything in an army is playable then people will want to own units of everything. I doubt there's been a massive rush on people buying lictors or whirlwinds.

(I dunno if whirlwinds are crap, I just never see them get mentioned.)

It should be what they want but they obviously aren't trying. If they were trying - wed have a balanced game - it is not that hard to do.

"its not hard"
And there goes any point you might have wanted to make.

I expect you will be able to produce a balanced version of 40k that is fun to play in about a months time? After all, its not hard.

I actually have to disagree with you here, and agree with the poster you're mocking.

It actually isn't hard to produce a balanced 40k edition if you are consistent with how you price units across the board with codices.

It can even be asymmetrical consistency, so maybe some codices have cheaper ranged power than others, but this must be counterbalanced in a manner that befits overall equality of strength between the two codices.

So? When can we expect this revised ruleset from you that will take the world by storm and become the new defacto method of playing 40k?

So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

Killshot pred lists.

Martel732 wrote:
Killshot pred lists.

And the vindicator strategum one, though their not exactlly top tier competative anyway, it might prod GW to give the marine strategums a second look though

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

White Scar and Ravenwing bike lists. Ork Speed freaks.

Yes, I know I know, WS aren't ALL bikes, but my army certainly is.

If it is limited to detachment (which is the only way that could work), that wouldn't be so bad, but wouldn't solve much either.

Already my 2000 pt WS bike list is reduced to 2 outrider detachments and a Flyer detachment for a whole 6 CPs...

Martel732 wrote:
Killshot pred lists.

Who is taking 4 predators? I was under the impression that they're reasonable units regardless and killshot was a bonus if you sprung for if they were still alive.

Also isn't it likely that other lists might not end up spamming things that can take predators/vindis down? Of course it's also possible with only 3 copies people might take end up preferring units that take all heavy weapons like Dark Reapers, which isn't optimal for them, but you get the idea.

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

Pure admech relies on Dragoons for space control. With a cap of three units, their defense is adversely effected in larger games. Dunecrawlers also operate like Squadrons but take up individual slots. Moreover, since Admech options are limited to three good units (Kastelans, Dragoons, Dunecrawlers), their pitiful unit selection gets even worse once you cap out.

Individual Dark Eldar obsessions are heavily lacking in diversity. If you go all in on any given one (as GW advertised players being able to do), then they start to fall apart as point levels increase.

Sisters of Battle are severely lacking in unit options, and suffer accordingly. Dominions and Retributors are basically the lifeblood of the entire faction at this point.

There are also a wide variety of themed lists that are not notably powerful that would also get pointlessly quashed.

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

In addition to the poster's list above, bye bye Deathwing, Inquisition and IG Tank Companies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Killshot pred lists.

Who is taking 4 predators? I was under the impression that they're reasonable units regardless and killshot was a bonus if you sprung for if they were still alive.

Also isn't it likely that other lists might not end up spamming things that can take predators/vindis down? Of course it's also possible with only 3 copies people might take end up preferring units that take all heavy weapons like Dark Reapers, which isn't optimal for them, but you get the idea.

I have a list with 4 preds.

 Fafnir wrote:
Pure admech relies on Dragoons for space control. With a cap of three units, their defense is adversely effected in larger games. Dunecrawlers also operate like Squadrons but take up individual slots. Moreover, since Admech options are limited to three good units (Kastelans, Dragoons, Dunecrawlers), their pitiful unit selection gets even worse once you cap out.

Even using just those units and a cap on 3 of each unit, I get over 3500pts for just those models - no Troops, no HQs, nothing. AdMech are fine with that limit.

They have other glaring issues, but the 3-unit cap doesn’t affect them.

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

yeah lets see IG players or ork players play with just three infantry units. *eyeroll*

 carldooley wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Silence, considering it is getting delayed?

OTOH, one of two things. Either a repeal of the Tau Commander limitation, or a statement that each HQ may only be taken once in a detachment.

Unless you play admech I'm guessing?

why should admech be exempted?

2 HQ optioins if you aren't taking cawl.

 Earth127 wrote:
The community resistance to comp stems from no form of it hitting everyone equally.

There is a point I'd like to add to Tripchimeras' list

F) Ban (old) stuff.

Eventually your ancient library of options becomes unmanageable so you reduce it. Magic has a regular cycle like this but the warhammer community absolutely hates this idea.

Reminder that magic still has formats where that "ancient stuff" remains playable.

Warhammer 40k has no formats, and saying "use the old edition" in many places and cases is tantamount to saying "Don't play at all"

So you can get right out of here with that crap.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Pure admech relies on Dragoons for space control. With a cap of three units, their defense is adversely effected in larger games. Dunecrawlers also operate like Squadrons but take up individual slots. Moreover, since Admech options are limited to three good units (Kastelans, Dragoons, Dunecrawlers), their pitiful unit selection gets even worse once you cap out.

Even using just those units and a cap on 3 of each unit, I get over 3500pts for just those models - no Troops, no HQs, nothing. AdMech are fine with that limit.

They have other glaring issues, but the 3-unit cap doesn’t affect them.

You'll rarely want more than 6 Kastellans in your army. More than one unit of that is not only a massive point sink that can be indefinitely tied up be even a single guardsman, but Binhinaric Overdrive can only be used on one unit at a time, meaning any other units are a waste of time. Kastelans are a huge point sink.

Multiple units of Dragoons are necessary to fortify your lines in order to block off deepstrike routes, intercept assaults, and tie up enemies. Outside of goondozer builds which are offensive in nature, this is best done with many small units of Dragoons, not maxed out ones. 6 separate units of Dragoons to insulate your guns is far more preferable to two units of 3 or one unit of 6. This is where they start to get hit.

With Cawl, one 6-man Kastelan force, 3 Dunecrawlers, and 3 one-man units of Dragoons, you cap out at 1531. Without more Dragoon units, an army like this has pitiful defense, and can easily be locked down in a single turn.

For the most part, id argue that 6 of anything is fairly boring to play against, and not particularly tactical to play. Most of the time it comes down to can they counter my 6 X units? If not I win!

I'd actually imagine that having reasonable restrictions with some select special exceptions for things like bike or termy armies would make the game easier to manage from a balance standpoint, and more enjoyable to play once we get used to it again. Similar (and actually more strict) rules worked in 5th and I don't think anyone was really complaining about that.

jcd386 wrote:
For the most part, id argue that 6 of anything is fairly boring to play against, and not particularly tactical to play. Most of the time it comes down to can they counter my 6 X units? If not I win!

I'd actually imagine that having reasonable restrictions with some select special exceptions for things like bike or termy armies would make the game easier to manage from a balance standpoint, and more enjoyable to play once we get used to it again. Similar (and actually more strict) rules worked in 5th and I don't think anyone was really complaining about that.

To be fair I don't think there's a huge outcry of terminators being OP...

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

Grey knights have only 1 fast attack choice, and it happens to be one of the few worthwhile units in the codex.

Custodes have basically one unit in each force org slot.

The argument against 0-3 is simple: prove to me why I shouldn't be able to take the models I want in my army. If you think "spam" is inherently bad that's fine, but realize that in many cases it's also very fluffy and enables thematic armies to exist.

 Ordana wrote:


I expect you will be able to produce a balanced version of 40k that is fun to play in about a months time? After all, its not hard.

Gw has big group of developers and have been at it 20 years.

Nobody is asking perfect from them in month. But at least 10% in 20 years from self titled best company isn't unreasonable.

10% of balanced. That's it. In 20 years they have failed at even that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

Nope. The balance hurts their profit. What they try is change meta so players rush to buy next broken army. Point changes apem't for balance but marketikng tool


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

That'll be why GWs sales reports were on a consistant decline during the Kirby era and suddenly started increasing after he left and the company started actually caring about balance.

Except it had nothing to do with balance. Game is just as broken now as before so if balance was reason sales would be same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

FAQ are a new thing for GW. I acknowledge they are doing a better job at it in 8th. It's still being handled quite lackadaisical. This edition is already a year old and we are more unbalanced now than when we started. GW's sales are through the roof right now too!

Faq's aren't new invention to gw. Now what is new is GW realized they can get players buy more models at even faster frequency by random shuffle of meta more faster without even having to rerelease codex. Yey! Players have to keep buying new models. Good reason to be gratefull eh?

Units that have lots of vastly different customization options for different roles can suffer hard from this. Tau drones are 1 type of unit despite being shield, gun, or marker drones. Imperial guard probably want more than 3 heavy weapons teams. Any list that requires more than 3x of any transport will be hurt. It will also depend on if it is tied to keyword or not. I really hope it isn't, otherwise the Commander nerf is still pretty one sided.

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

Speed freaks for one. Not that they were competive to begin with but trukks max 3 would suck. Trukks work only when you have lots of them. Whole point of them compared to rhino is they are fraqile but you have more of them.

tneva82 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

Speed freaks for one. Not that they were competive to begin with but trukks max 3 would suck. Trukks work only when you have lots of them. Whole point of them compared to rhino is they are fraqile but you have more of them.

Hopefully they write it in such a way that transports aren't affected by the cap, especially not transports for troops.

Or they kinda gak on Mech IG like Armageddon too. The flavour goes out the window if you can't actually have Chimeras for all the guys.

Panzergraf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
So what armies would be 'nerfed into the ground' by a 3-unit cap exactly? I haven't seen a good argument against it from what I've read in this thread yet...

Speed freaks for one. Not that they were competive to begin with but trukks max 3 would suck. Trukks work only when you have lots of them. Whole point of them compared to rhino is they are fraqile but you have more of them.

Hopefully they write it in such a way that transports aren't affected by the cap, especially not transports for troops.

Or they kinda gak on Mech IG like Armageddon too. The flavour goes out the window if you can't actually have Chimeras for all the guys.

That's pretty hard. There is no transports for troops. There's just transports. What transport belongs to what isn't noted anywhere.

Anyway "hopefully they write it"? That's on assumption this is true. You think GW hates money and wants less? They have been REMOVING restrictions rather than adding more for years. This would kill entire factions out of game effectively thus crippling their sales. Not something GW is likely to do.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:


I expect you will be able to produce a balanced version of 40k that is fun to play in about a months time? After all, its not hard.

Gw has big group of developers and have been at it 20 years.

Nobody is asking perfect from them in month. But at least 10% in 20 years from self titled best company isn't unreasonable.

10% of balanced. That's it. In 20 years they have failed at even that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

Nope. The balance hurts their profit. What they try is change meta so players rush to buy next broken army. Point changes apem't for balance but marketikng tool


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

That'll be why GWs sales reports were on a consistant decline during the Kirby era and suddenly started increasing after he left and the company started actually caring about balance.

Except it had nothing to do with balance. Game is just as broken now as before so if balance was reason sales would be same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
The very fact that they are coming out with a faq shows they are trying for balance...

FAQ are a new thing for GW. I acknowledge they are doing a better job at it in 8th. It's still being handled quite lackadaisical. This edition is already a year old and we are more unbalanced now than when we started. GW's sales are through the roof right now too!

Faq's aren't new invention to gw. Now what is new is GW realized they can get players buy more models at even faster frequency by random shuffle of meta more faster without even having to rerelease codex. Yey! Players have to keep buying new models. Good reason to be gratefull eh?

Please define "10% balanced". In my view they are far far past that point, they were at 40-45% during 6th, dropped to 20% at the end of 7th and is now at 87-88%. So yes, they are definetely making progress (now), and they actually care about balance despite your tinfoil hat theories.

The problem is that tournaments (even at the bottom tables) usually feature the overpowered stuff. The structural incentives of tournaments is for players to find the things that are above the curve and use them for that extra edge and advantage. Things that are balanced and roughly in the middle of the power scale will always be useless to the tournament crowd, almost by definition, precisely because it sits somewhere in the middle.

I imagine Harlequins would be affected by this 3 limit rather hard. It's an already limited army.