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.

True, and yours seems to be that balance is better done by points when that means making all units worse regardless of spam. There is no point of opinion that balancing redundant units is not the same as balancing singular copies of the same unit.

Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

Oh no, my guard CP battery costs 10 points extra (-1 commander +1 infantry squad). What ever will I do.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.

Breng77 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.

Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.

Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.

My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.

Hardcaps do work for balance. There are units that are too good when spammed but are perfectly fine, if not under performing, when taken in small numbers, so i would be in favor of some hardcaps.

The point system by it's nature cannot model many interactions, and will never be able to correctly represent many models. The assumption that every model is fine if appropriately costed is FALSE.

That said, the Tau commander is a clear case of a model being too good for the points and NOT the right target for an hardcap.

My point though is that you don't get that, precisely because some armies pay less for those troops than others, so sure your flyrant example works, to some extent (though you could get 7 with 4 termagant squads if you go one battalion and a supreme command)

As for gamebreaking troops
-cultists + poxwalkers
-in a troop heavy meta- khorne berzerkers
- Blood letter bombs?
- Supported Plauge bearers are pretty nasty.


The general point is some armies will be taking those troops already in their build, where as some don't going troop heavy only solves the spam lists a little, and does nothing to those armies that have strong troops.

Guard for instance are already bringing 4 infantry squads (at least) so no issue for them to keep doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Hardcaps do work for balance. There are units that are too good when spammed but are perfectly fine, if not under performing, when taken in small numbers, so i would be in favor of some hardcaps.

The point system by it's nature cannot model many interactions, and will never be able to correctly represent many models. The assumption that every model is fine if appropriately costed is FALSE.

That said, the Tau commander is a clear case of a model being too good for the points and NOT the right target for an hardcap.

100% this, look at the Plague burst crawler. Is it too good for its points if you have 1 or 2. Maybe, is it too good if it is the only target in the army? yup.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.

Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.

Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.

My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.

All this does is force soup even more and make stuff like IG and Cultists even more of a must-have because troop units aren't balanced, especially when it comes to generating CP.
I hope they either reward CP per amount of points spent on troops or just disconnect it from list building entirely and just give everyone 3 per 500pts or something.

Forcing everyone to play X is a big no in my book when it comes to a creative game like this. Reward troop choices sure, but don't make them obligatory.

Warhammer Community updated and no FAQ so I guess its not dropping today and possibly not this week.

 Ordana wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:
I'd love to see free fall back removed

You would also need to remove all the T1 and reserve charge stuff. or assault armies will run rampant.

I’d be happy with that too!

My guesses revolve mostly around Detachments, personally. Some repairs might include:

Reducing the number of Detatchments per point level by 1. (So, 1 up to 1000 pts, 2 up to 2000, etc).

Changing the Supreme Command Detatchment to a -1 CP instead of a +1 CP (Personally, I'd flag it at -3., but.)

Changing the Super Heavy detatchment to -1 and limit it to a single Super Heavy. (Note: This would require that knights get some helo.)

Create a list of one-per-army and one-per-Detatchment slots akin to the current Commander cap for Tau. One Master or the Chapter or Primarch per army, one Captain/Lord/Prince per detachment, etc.

In essence, put some shape into the Detachments since point fixs and the like are for Fall, not Spring, and this would be a core area to make adjustments in.

Yay i could still take unlimited ba troops! Oh wait....

 Sim-Life wrote:
Warhammer Community updated and no FAQ so I guess its not dropping today and possibly not this week.

Ah, man...and I had my robot all ready for world domination...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Warhammer Community updated and no FAQ so I guess its not dropping today and possibly not this week.

Ah, man...and I had my robot all ready for world domination...

Spoiler:

That. Is. Epic!

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.

Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.

Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.

My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.

Naw, can still bring 6 flyrants with 12 ripper swarms for massive board control.

Back in like 4th two troops and 1 hq was mandatory all armies and only troops controlled objectives

I think the FAQ got a clock on the wall like SoB. The more we mention it the more they reset the clock.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the FAQ got a clock on the wall like SoB. The more we mention it the more they reset the clock.

Or they are actually testing the changes they plan to make rather then rush out some stuff in 2 days and creating a bigger mess.

2 3/4...... 2 1/2.......2

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the FAQ got a clock on the wall like SoB. The more we mention it the more they reset the clock.

Or they are actually testing the changes they plan to make rather then rush out some stuff in 2 days and creating a bigger mess.

Oh, I'm just poking fun. I'm totally not worried about the timeframe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I disagree. The Index version had worse balance and a lot less options.

The game is more balanced to you with -1 to hit army traits and stratagem levels ranging from space marines to eldar? Come on man - try harder.

I'll say that it is more balanced than index. You have a couple of spikes here and there, but you pull those out and the vast majority of armies do fine. Orks & IK need love and i'm sure some others need some more tools to make more varied lists, but they can compete.

How is it more balanced than index? Somehow adding more rules and a larger power gap between armies due to unbalanced strategems and army traits - somehow made the game more balanced in your opinion? Buffing flyrants and shinning spears and dark reapers made the game more balanced?

I actually liked the Index game more than the Codex game - and the Index really butchered one of my favorite units.

Each Codex that comes out seems to make the game worse - some slightly, some significantly.

 Xenomancers wrote:
How is it more balanced than index? Somehow adding more rules and a larger power gap between armies due to unbalanced strategems and army traits - somehow made the game more balanced in your opinion? Buffing flyrants and shinning spears and dark reapers made the game more balanced?

I should clarify as more balanced for codex armies. When 8th started who was king? RG. Because he had hands down the most potent force multiplier available. Conscripts were on the other side of that. Like I said - there are a few spikes to hammer down, but Flyrants aren't unbeatable. Neither are DR & SS. There have been several leveling FAQs and changes. We've just been waiting for this one a bit longer than expected.

If a faq is perfect in the dev team forest but never gets released...does it matter?

Maybe make CPs usable only by the detachments that generate them?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

So what you're saying is 'I play guard and am sick of occasionally losing games to other armies, change it so that I can faceroll over everyone else pls.' What nonsense.

ERJAK wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

So what you're saying is 'I play guard and am sick of occasionally losing games to other armies, change it so that I can faceroll over everyone else pls.' What nonsense.

I play gunline tyranids, thousand sons and devilfish/piranha tau. You can also see it in my signature. You were so close.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

The issue is that "troops" are pretty arbitrary and not all that balanced between factions. Also unless you are doing % per slot method, guard plays 160 points for 4 troops, whereas say GK pay close to 400.

Well, it's not the same troops though is it? I could add that stupid sub-units like spore mines should not count on the troops choices. But the point is not to punish GK. The point is that if you want 7 flyrants then you need 16 troops. 12 troops for 6 flyrants. And if it can't be spore mines then that's -at a minimum- 12 times of 40 pts to bring termagants. Or you can choose your command detachment but then you can play with your 1 CP.

Alternatively we could go back to point percentagies, aka minimum 25% (or even 50%) troops. So in a 2000 list, that's minimum of 500 pts on troops. It worked well for many editions in WHFB and it takes into account the discrepancies between cheap and expensive troops in different armies.

My bottom point is, force more troops, you get more balanced armies, just by virtue of no troop unit to my knowledge is currently gamebreaking.

You don't get more balanced armies, you get armies with good troops dominating the game and everyone else getting screwed, whether it's percentage or price based is irrelevant. There is no point level where tactical marines are better than cultists or necron warriors or infantry platoons.

If this frankly asinine change went through you would never see another loyalist space marine army of any stripe or another custodes army ever again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Make minimum troops in battalion and brigade 4+, remove the three starting CP and make stratagems REALLY GOOD(TM). Also make the battalion HQ requirements 1-2 instead of 2-3. Now if you want to play the REALLY GOOD(TM) stratagems, you need to play battalions or brigades because you don't have free 3 CPs to begin the game with. And if you want to play battalions, you need 4 troops min and this can only give you 2 HQ, not 3. Armies should be 70% troops to represent common sense or any resemblance to an actual army. Otherwise there's open play for all your cheesy shenaninenigans.

So what you're saying is 'I play guard and am sick of occasionally losing games to other armies, change it so that I can faceroll over everyone else pls.' What nonsense.

I play gunline tyranids, thousand sons and devilfish/piranha tau. You can also see it in my signature. You were so close.

Not if the troop change goes through you don't

This FAQ delay has to hurt model sales already in some minor way. Everyone I know have all of their projects on halt until we see what drops. Likewise, motivation to attend old meta tournaments is plummeting.

GW needs to get this patch out. Fast.

Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.