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.

 Earth127 wrote:
Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.

The only thing it changes for me is what I might paint to get ready for a tournament. I expect to see generally good parity among most units in the future so i'll buy whatever.

 Therion wrote:
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.

Everyone I know is building Forgebane

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.

I'd agree if they put Windrunners back into Troops. No way am I going to play armies with a horde of Guardians, Kabalites, and/or Dire Avengers. There is a reason why I never played Warhammer Fantasy: I don't want to paint a horde of the same infantry troop model.

 Eldarsif wrote:

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.

I'd agree if they put Windrunners back into Troops. No way am I going to play armies with a horde of Guardians, Kabalites, and/or Dire Avengers. There is a reason why I never played Warhammer Fantasy: I don't want to paint a horde of the same infantry troop model.

I don't know why everybody thinks the solution is to upend the game like this. Forcing more troops doesn't feel like Warhammer - I want reasons to take a variety of models that look hella cool instead of feeling forced to fill my army with spam, whether it's due to balancing or because the rules say so.

 Therion wrote:
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.

Oh its absolutely stopped my purchases which is probably the silver lining here to be honest

 Earth127 wrote:
Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.

I'm not buying anymore Pathfinders if there's a chance of them becoming straight up illegal to run in 2k games.

MalfunctBot wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.

I'm not buying anymore Pathfinders if there's a chance of them becoming straight up illegal to run in 2k games.

About only realistic way that rumour is true if it's per detachment rather than army.

tneva82 wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.

I'm not buying anymore Pathfinders if there's a chance of them becoming straight up illegal to run in 2k games.

About only realistic way that rumour is true if it's per detachment rather than army.

At which point it solves nothing as for command points your taking 3 detachments anyway so its 3x3 so 9 of a single unit, still pretty spamable.

Ice_can wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Minor being the operative word. I don't know anyone holding of on purchase because of it.

I'm not buying anymore Pathfinders if there's a chance of them becoming straight up illegal to run in 2k games.

About only realistic way that rumour is true if it's per detachment rather than army.

At which point it solves nothing as for command points your taking 3 detachments anyway so its 3x3 so 9 of a single unit, still pretty spamable.

Yeah but GW isn't going to create such a sales prohibite restriction(and for once it would be right decision for wrong reason. Limits aren't balance fixes. Doesn't fix problem. It just bandaids. It's sweeping dust under blanket hoping nobody sees the problem that still exists. Rather than limitations just fix the problem instead)

It does limit by making sure there's no 10+ copies of same unit at least.

The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.

It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.

Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.

The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.

 Therion wrote:
The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.

It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.

Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.

The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.

Better balance is all fine and dandy, but not when it comes at the cost of lists that never did anything wrong to begin with. My combined arms, non spammy Tau shouldn't get invalidated just because someone decided to take 7 Flying Hivetyrants to a tournament.

 Therion wrote:
The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.

It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.

Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.

The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.

Are we talking about balance or appearances?

Of course if you dont' care about balance limit if you want. I would for a change want balanced game for a change. Or even like half balanced.

If you just add limitations GAME IS STILL UNBALANCED.

Fix that. Then you don't even get the spam because there's no need to spam.

But yeah sure guess some people want unbalanced game instead. Each to his own I guess.

---Double Post, ignore---

tneva82 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
The ”it doesn’t fix the problem it’s just a band aid” line that gets spewed around is a fallacy.

It never occurred to you that a designer may think the game is tactically more interesting when lists aren’t so polarised? An all flyers list or an all tough crawlers list or an all horde makes 40K a game of matchups and less about generalship. Now some of you may even prefer it that way so the flaws in your gameplay are hidden under the absurdity of the list, or of course because of myriad other reasons, but a designer may deem otherwise.

Nobody anywhere is claiming that 3 max would fix the game just by itself. It however is a starting point the game needs but many players don’t want. Points costs need adjustment too, and some special rules toned up/down.

The argument ”it doesn’t fix the game” is trying to deny the designers a starting point because it somehow is ’t a magical instant cure all. It’s a neverending process where it’s allowed to go back and forth, and the goal isn’t balance, but better balance.

Are we talking about balance or appearances?

Of course if you dont' care about balance limit if you want. I would for a change want balanced game for a change. Or even like half balanced.

If you just add limitations GAME IS STILL UNBALANCED.

Fix that. Then you don't even get the spam because there's no need to spam.

But yeah sure guess some people want unbalanced game instead. Each to his own I guess.

There is no way to fix balance without restrictions and have it limit spam because spam creates skew lists which leads to imbalance. No matter what you cost things spamming to skew lists will occur with whatever the better units are for a particular role.

Breng77 wrote:

There is no way to fix balance without restrictions and have it limit spam because spam creates skew lists which leads to imbalance. No matter what you cost things spamming to skew lists will occur with whatever the better units are for a particular role.

Ah yeah sorry I forgot. Units don't have this thing called "points value" and problem wasn't that units were too good for their points. Oh no. It was simply you could take same for all the...oh wait without point costs to balance with how did you build army?

Points are good but not the be-all end-all of balance. Synergies, scenarios, opposing units are hard to capture in points. A lasscannon is worth a lot against tanks but no one is gna us eit against GEQ.

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

There is no way to fix balance without restrictions and have it limit spam because spam creates skew lists which leads to imbalance. No matter what you cost things spamming to skew lists will occur with whatever the better units are for a particular role.

Ah yeah sorry I forgot. Units don't have this thing called "points value" and problem wasn't that units were too good for their points. Oh no. It was simply you could take same for all the...oh wait without point costs to balance with how did you build army?

If spam is allowed points costs become less valid unless you put them on a sliding scale where each additional unit costs more. A single flyrant is powerful but not overly so the spam is what is overly powerful. If you cost it to the point where that is not the case a single tyrant becomes useless as well. There is no ideal scenario where all units are equally viable and interesting and unique and can be taken in basically unlimited numbers.

Breng77 wrote:

If spam is allowed points costs become less valid unless you put them on a sliding scale where each additional unit costs more. A single flyrant is powerful but not overly so the spam is what is overly powerful. If you cost it to the point where that is not the case a single tyrant becomes useless as well. There is no ideal scenario where all units are equally viable and interesting and unique and can be taken in basically unlimited numbers.

This is mostly not true. Skew lists are stronger than lists that present a variety of defensive profiles, but this is not because they only have one unit. It's because they bring a bunch of units that have similar defensive profiles -- it's a skew list whether it's a ton of Leman Russes or whether it's some Leman Russes, some Manticores, and some Basilisks. The reason that you see flyrants spammed instead of a mix of Tyranid monsters is that flyrants are just much better than the other monsters for their points, and this is mostly independent of the number of flyrants and other monsters you already have in your list. A single flyrant clearly is overly powerful if you just compare it to what other units provide for the same cost. It's just that this isn't going to be obvious in a game because luck will overwhelm the effect of 10% of your list being 15% too good.

If you want to address the skew problem and make it reasonable to take an army that presents both GEQ and tank profiles for enemy fire, you've got to do a lot more than just restrict a couple of units. You need to make it so that you just can't do all the things you're wanting to do while neglecting an entire class of units.

Edit: Tyrants are actually one of the least spammable units. They're supposedly paying for Synapse and Shadow in the Warp, which you don't need everywhere. They're supposedly paying for 2 psychic powers per turn, and with 7+ Tyrants you literally cannot make use of all of these (and lbr at least 2 of their powers are pretty bad). If you're playing with beta smite rules you're going to have issues there too. They're supposedly paying for 1 denial per turn, and you rarely need that many of these. A single Tyrant gets to leverage all of these advantages to the fullest, whereas you're just wasting them to a large extent when you spam. That Tyrants get spammed anyway just goes to show how good they are.

Also restriction CAN be said to be a band-aid fix when you consider that list building being so open and freeform was one of the main selling points of this edition. If an FAQ is going 180 on what is one of the CORE FEATURES of an edition it is NOT a good change.

While that is true, restrictions on specific units give at least some reduction in the power of skew lists because many armies don't have a ton of units with one profile. I'm not suggesting points don't need addressing simply that points alone cannot prevent spam. Are tyrants too strong for their points, sure, can basically any army handle 1 or 2 (or maybe 3) yeah, there is a reason 7 is powerful, it is that it allows a few to die and still have them do their job. Let me put it to you this way. If you limit tyrants to 3 I don't think you would see 3 in every army because they are significantly less powerful at that point. It isn't about 10% of your list being 15% too good, its that the 10% dies to the enemy too fast to be worth 10% of your points, unless the other 60% of those 15% too strong units come into play.

Which makes another point allowing spam exacerbates any overly efficient units. If we go with the 10% being worth 15% that you used. That means 7 tyrants are essentially netting you 35% extra value

I agree that to truly fix skew lists you need to restrict a lot more than what is being done, but to suggest that that means nothing should be restricted seems off to me.

"Well less optimal skew lists will still happen, so we should do nothing."

IMO points will never be perfectly balanced it is super improbable. Given that I'd rather see fewer of each imbalanced unit on the table.

Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.

A more thought out opinion, perhaps. Yours is based on "restrictions bad, no like" and all you say is that. If you don't want to be debate then don't respond.

All you have to do is look at some of our current restrictions:

- Point level
- Detachment
- Unit type
- Number of detachments (suggested, but highly used)
- Spell casting

gendoikari87 wrote:
Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.

Sorry it isn't an opinion it is a fact. Point me to a balanced miniatures game with no restrictions on your list building. For the life of me I cannot think of one. Are you telling me you believe that every unit has a magical point cost where it is:

1.) Well balanced no matter how many you bring
2.) Well balanced no matter what you bring with it.

Sorry I don't believe that to be an achievable goal, every other game in that I can think of has some limits the list building, either extremely small army size, restrictions on specific units, or restrictions on slots of units, etc. Right now 40k has essentially has none of those so spam is king because perfect balance is improbable so whatever is best will get spammed. So I can either sit it out in hopes that one day magically everything will be balanced, or I can say hey this restriction does a decent job helping to balance the game.

Your Opinion seems to be "restrictions bad, me no like, I'd rather have 7 flyrants, than be restricted for the sake of balance." Which if you don't care about balance, that's fine, but it doesn't make the idea that restrictions add more balance wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Again that’s just like your opinion man. We get it, we disagree. stop clogging the thread and drop it.

A more thought out opinion, perhaps. Yours is based on "restrictions bad, no like" and all you say is that. If you don't want to be debate then don't respond.

All you have to do is look at some of our current restrictions:

- Point level
- Detachment
- Unit type
- Number of detachments (suggested, but highly used)
- Spell casting

yup, also stratagems and unit size.

I mean why should we have those? Strats should just cost enough CP so that we don't want to spam them in one phase, that is better than restricting to 1 per phase. Units should also be allowed to be as large as someone desires them to be, just cost them so it isn't a problem.

Look if you want more restrictions go the f back to 5th. 1 hq 2 troops minimum and only troops captured objectives

Breng77 wrote:
While that is true, restrictions on specific units give at least some reduction in the power of skew lists because many armies don't have a ton of units with one profile. I'm not suggesting points don't need addressing simply that points alone cannot prevent spam. Are tyrants too strong for their points, sure, can basically any army handle 1 or 2 (or maybe 3) yeah, there is a reason 7 is powerful, it is that it allows a few to die and still have them do their job. Let me put it to you this way. If you limit tyrants to 3 I don't think you would see 3 in every army because they are significantly less powerful at that point. It isn't about 10% of your list being 15% too good, its that the 10% dies to the enemy too fast to be worth 10% of your points, unless the other 60% of those 15% too strong units come into play.

Which makes another point allowing spam exacerbates any overly efficient units. If we go with the 10% being worth 15% that you used. That means 7 tyrants are essentially netting you 35% extra value

I agree that to truly fix skew lists you need to restrict a lot more than what is being done, but to suggest that that means nothing should be restricted seems off to me.

"Well less optimal skew lists will still happen, so we should do nothing."

IMO points will never be perfectly balanced it is super improbable. Given that I'd rather see fewer of each imbalanced unit on the table.

This seems pretty much spot on to me. Good post.

I personally think that the direction of the last few editions with unlimited allies and then unlimited Foc options has been a mistake.

The ally idea was a fairly blatent money grab in 6th, and part of GW's giant middle finger to game balance and tournement play in that era.

The FOC expansion in 7th with their detachments came with a lot of fluffy rules and requirements that quickly became unbalanced because it's difficult to balance so many abilities.

8th reduced the allies somewhat, but clearly they are still a real issue. It's always going to be significantly harder to balance imperium as a whole than it is a single codex. I'm honestly not sure why GW thought it was a good idea to effectively throw out the FOC and allow things like no troop armies, unlimited heavy support, etc, when do many aspects of the game's design over the years has been done based on the concept of some kind of restrictions. Otherwise there isn't really much of a point in having distinctions like elite, heavy, and fast attack.

I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.

Martel732 wrote:
I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.

There are other balancing factors in that game, build time etc. There are also far fewer units (as far as I know) and no unit options. You also build as you go, rather than come to the table with a preset list. The games aren't comparable at all.

Martel732 wrote:
I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.

Yeah, but that's a disingenuous analogy. In starcraft, if my opponent spams units (like say mutalisks), then I can build units that counter them (like vikings). 40k doesn't have a reactive, and fluid composition that can be changed during the game to tailor your list more for what you are facing. So you get situations where an opponent spams mutalisks, and you are stuck with hellions and can't tech change. GG.

I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I can spam anything i want in starcraft. Way more balanced than 40k. It's the points values. Period.

There are other balancing factors in that game, build time etc. There are also far fewer units (as far as I know) and no unit options. You also build as you go, rather than come to the table with a preset list. The games aren't comparable at all.

Fog of war
Mirrored maps from a finite list
"Points" being resources are equal for both sides