What changes do you expect to see with the "Big FAQ" coming in March?

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.

**Daedalus81**

Martel732 wrote:
If only 40k had temporal costs.

Most of my issues aren't heroes. It's the 4ppm guardsmen. Because they turn off my heroes by existing.

Right, and I mostly agree with you, but you won't get and more nerfs on IG past 5 points, so, (as an example) if they're still a problem after that are they a problem for just BA or for everyone? How would we easily tell? Because honestly the only games we get to analyze are top tables - we see none of the lists and losses leading up to them.

Now pretend it's Hive Tyrants - they get a point increase and they're still a problem for some armies, but not others and only in large numbers should restriction not be something on the table?

**Bharring**

You wouldn't allow that rule.

But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.

Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?

Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?

You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?

**Xenomancers**

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Here's an analogy:
A game we're all familiar with where every piece has equal value: Checkers
A game we're all familiar with where there are different pieces with differing values: Chess
The game with different pieces with differing values is much more tactically deep and interesting than the one where all the pieces have the same value.

That said, chess also works as well as it does because it imposes a set roster of pieces on each player, forcing them to make tactical decisions over the course of the game. They can't, for instance, elect to take one less rook and a few less pawns in order to take a second queen.

40K has historically been like chess where players can decide what pieces they're going to opt to play. This hasn't really encouraged tactics on the tabletop so much as it's encouraged optimization of list-building.

Also, 40K has never really been built around the idea that a point spent in one place is always worth a point spent in another place. The different force organization roles have always played a part in what the value of units are likely to be. Heavy Support has always been about laying down damage. Fast Attack has traditionally been about initial board control - moving units to places quickly. Elites are harder to categorize, but generally are units with variant abilities - like Deep Strike or Infiltrate. Troops have largely been less about doing damage than they are about board control - they don't generally get places as quickly as Fast Attack choices, but they do so with more model density per point spent than Fast Attack choices.

This formula worked okay in 3rd and 4th editions. It worked best in 5th edition, which was the edition where Troops had the best board control ability they have ever had. Those were also editions where everyone carried a Troops requirement and where the most unit spam a player could put on the table was generally 3 of any given unit, though there have been some exceptions (4th edition Nidzilla, for instance)

6th edition rescinded the unique board control ability of Troops, which hit them hard, and they haven't really recovered. Obsec doesn't matter so much if ones Troops can simply get blasted off the board by an opponent who decided to invest hard in units that can simply erase them from the board.

One idea would be to return to having only Troops be able to score objectives, with the addition of a generic Stratagem that can allow a non-Troops unit to be scoring for one turn. That would be strong incentive to invest in robust Troops elements while allowing players who want to play other styles of armies to do so without them being an auto-lose because of complete inability to score objectives.

Speaking of chess. People use a point system to rate peices.

I've been out of chess for a long time. But check this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value

**Breng77**

Martel732 wrote:
I think your point is invalid. I'm not missing it.

With your proposal, there will be three flyrants, then three of the next most undercosted unit, then three of the next most undercosted unit. Codices without any undercosted units still lose.

This assumes that all codices have numerous undercosted units, which they don't. You even claim some have none. No one is claiming that super powerful units don't need point fixes. They do. My claim at least is ok I point fix the flyrant, now they disapear, and everyone spams the next point efficient choice, just like you claim, except now that needs to get fixed as well. But GW is only fixing twice a year (and points might only be once). So now we are stuck with the next big offender until it gets point fixed and gives way to the next biggest offender.

I'd rather see (an you can disagree) a system that says, you can only take 3 of each "undercosted" unit because it will weaken those builds, and prevent "the next undercosted unit" from rotating to the top by getting spammed. Then GW can address points for more units at one time.

"Hey every tyranid list is 3 flyrants, 3 units of hive guard, 3 Mawlocs...." Maybe we should look at the points on those units. Or conversely "no one is taking Pyrovores even with a variety of units in their army, maybe they need a points decrease." Right now we get. "Hey look at those 7 flyrants we need to fix that one unit" with no data on the next big offender available.

**Drager**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think that condition exists in general. Limiting it to three just limits the aggregate utility to 3 (fair price - existing unfair price).

None linear sacling is the norm in 40k. I gave an example above with the ravager, but you can do it with almost any unit. One Black Heart Archon is great, 2 is OK, 3 is a tax, 4 is starting to cripple your army. That is a unit that doesn't work well when spammed, but may be a little undercosted for the first one. This happens in the reverse too. 1 Hive Tyrant with wings is generally a waste of time to bring. 2 is fine. 3 is good. 4 is great. 5+ is silly.

**Martel732**

Bharring wrote:
You wouldn't allow that rule.

But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.

Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?

Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?

You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?

Not as extreme. Space marine captains can have finite units in the 6" bubble. At the cost of table coverage, as well. We can't mathematically determine its value, but we can empirically. Your rule just scaled open endedly with no drawbacks.

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
You wouldn't allow that rule.

But we have those rules, in effect. Most HQs buff guys around them - the guys they buff are worth more wtih them than without.

Tac Marines can be worthwhile with Bobby G, it seems, but aren't without him (or so the current thought goes)?

Reapers with Ynnari are clearly worht more than 30ppm, but without Ynnari are they still worth as much?

You can say you wouldn't let those rules into the game, but aren't they already here?

I agree that auras are problematic from a balance prospective. I for one would be happy to see auras go and turn into target activated abilities that could only affect X numbers of units.
Like a LT can buff 1 units
A captain 2
A grand master 3
and RG maybe 4

Something like that would be far easier to balance. You could alter the range of the abilities too - 6" could become 9" or something to give you more freedom to maneuver and make the game more fun. I wish all "aura abiltiies" worked like this.

**Breng77**

Martel732 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?

Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire

What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP

I wouldn't allow that rule in a game for the exact reason you posted it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I still it underscores spam as NOT the problem. Make offending units cost more first.

No it doesn't because cost is not the only balancing factor involved. So you make flyrants, reapers, PBC cost more. Either they cost too much to spam and someone finds the next unbalanced unit to spam (because we are only addressing things one at a time) and this lasts until chapter approved, or They still are undercosted and still get spammed there are just fewer of them. Unfortunately in an "unbound" list building world, if you aren't the best option you may as well be the worst option. Thus until all units are "perfectly balanced" where there is no best option to spam, changing points only changes what gets spammed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The lone hive tyrant should cost more than it currently does. T7, 4++ and ability to be reserved, AND ability to move quickly after dropping SHOULD be expensive. Oh, and it's a psyker.

yes but that cost is likely not the same cost that would prevent them from getting spammed, which is the issue.

I'd start with upping wings by 50 pts. You don't think that's enough?

Nope, that makes the 240 base before upgrades. I still think you would see spam, you might just see 6 instead of 7. That is the problem, I think to stop spam they would have to be 300 points or more to counter spam, at which point I'm not sure they are any good when you take 1 because it will die to fast. Just look a Mortarion, he has fallen out of favor because he dies too quickly. Largely the Same with Magnus. Expensive tyrants would be the same. They are good now because you can take enough of them to allow for some dying, and still get to do damage, with the others. If you listen to Matt Root (who brought 7) talk about adepticon, he felt 4 or 5 were too few to win against better armies because you would lose 2 and 2 or 3 were not enough to get the job done. So talking stopping spam through points, only hurts the guy who was only bringing 1 or 2, because the top guy isn't bringing any at some point.

**Martel732**

Maybe. So maybe the number is 70. But limiting it to 3 doesn't fix the actual unit.

**Xenomancers**

Drager wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't think that condition exists in general. Limiting it to three just limits the aggregate utility to 3 (fair price - existing unfair price).
None linear sacling is the norm in 40k. I gave an example above with the ravager, but you can do it with almost any unit. One Black Heart Archon is great, 2 is OK, 3 is a tax, 4 is starting to cripple your army. That is a unit that doesn't work well when spammed, but may be a little undercosted for the first one. This happens in the reverse too. 1 Hive Tyrant with wings is generally a waste of time to bring. 2 is fine. 3 is good. 4 is great. 5+ is silly.

That archon would always be better off being a flying hive tyrant. What you are talking about is a small inefficiency is multiplied by how many times you have to take the unit. 4 bad units it's worse than 1 bad unit. 4 good units is better than 1. This is just efficiency in practice. The problem is some units are more efficient than others. If an archon was 40 points instead of the 83 or something he is now - he would also be spammed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. So maybe the number is 70. But limiting it to 3 doesn't fix the actual unit.

My personal opinion that the FHT needs to have it's MRC (its amazing FREE close combat weapon) needs to cost 20 points. I mean...

it's ap-3 d3 damage on 6's auto 3 damage and AP -6. REROLL ALL FAILED WOUNDS. Easily a 20 points weapon.
After that - it might need to go up by another 10 or so points but lets just start with the weapon.

**Grand.Master.Raziel**

Xenomancers wrote:
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Here's an analogy:
A game we're all familiar with where every piece has equal value: Checkers
A game we're all familiar with where there are different pieces with differing values: Chess
The game with different pieces with differing values is much more tactically deep and interesting than the one where all the pieces have the same value.

That said, chess also works as well as it does because it imposes a set roster of pieces on each player, forcing them to make tactical decisions over the course of the game. They can't, for instance, elect to take one less rook and a few less pawns in order to take a second queen.

40K has historically been like chess where players can decide what pieces they're going to opt to play. This hasn't really encouraged tactics on the tabletop so much as it's encouraged optimization of list-building.

Also, 40K has never really been built around the idea that a point spent in one place is always worth a point spent in another place. The different force organization roles have always played a part in what the value of units are likely to be. Heavy Support has always been about laying down damage. Fast Attack has traditionally been about initial board control - moving units to places quickly. Elites are harder to categorize, but generally are units with variant abilities - like Deep Strike or Infiltrate. Troops have largely been less about doing damage than they are about board control - they don't generally get places as quickly as Fast Attack choices, but they do so with more model density per point spent than Fast Attack choices.

This formula worked okay in 3rd and 4th editions. It worked best in 5th edition, which was the edition where Troops had the best board control ability they have ever had. Those were also editions where everyone carried a Troops requirement and where the most unit spam a player could put on the table was generally 3 of any given unit, though there have been some exceptions (4th edition Nidzilla, for instance)

6th edition rescinded the unique board control ability of Troops, which hit them hard, and they haven't really recovered. Obsec doesn't matter so much if ones Troops can simply get blasted off the board by an opponent who decided to invest hard in units that can simply erase them from the board.

One idea would be to return to having only Troops be able to score objectives, with the addition of a generic Stratagem that can allow a non-Troops unit to be scoring for one turn. That would be strong incentive to invest in robust Troops elements while allowing players who want to play other styles of armies to do so without them being an auto-lose because of complete inability to score objectives.

Speaking of chess. People use a point system to rate peices.

I've been out of chess for a long time. But check this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value

Yeah, I had those values in mind when I mentioned swapping a rook and a few pawns for a second Queen.

**Breng77**

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. So maybe the number is 70. But limiting it to 3 doesn't fix the actual unit.

No but it does fix the list of 7 hive tyrants, much more easily than trying to guess at the right number of points to increase the unit to make it "non-spamable" and it doesn't penalize people who want to run them.

Personally I am hoping for the 0-3 fix in this FAQ, and no points changes (or maybe a few changes to top offenders). Then points changes in CA after we have time to see what the top offenders in each book are (what gets spammed 0-3 in every top army).

As I have said I'm not sure if limited to 3 Hive tyrants are so OP as to need large points change. If not limited I think they need a rather significant one.

The issue here might be that you want every unit to be well balanced (ideally) whereas I only care if the game is well balanced In the long run sure I'd like to see every unit be viable, but in the short term I'd rather see a fix that will address all possible units that will be spammed rather than wait for the meta to change and address it then.

**tripchimeras**

40k is literally the only wargame I have ever been exposed to where the community this obstinately clings to the idea that restrictions are bad and points alone can fix everything... Redundancy is a powerful weapon, far more powerful then many seem to understand, and the power behind it goes way beyond things being simply improperly point costed. I don't know how many of you played fantasy but my username speaks to the power of redundancy, if any of you were familiar with Warhammer 8th edition you know of what I speak, and you know that triple chimeras rarely appeared on the tournament circuit despite GW never fixing their power, because of almost all of the restrictive comp systems in play making it crippling to take more then 2. Points alone do not really fix this, because what is well costed when taken alone can become crazy when taken in multiples of 4 or 5.

Someone above claimed that the same can be achieved by taking multiple units of similar types, but it is not the same unless their profiles and utilities are nearly identical. In a wargame the power of redundancy is very difficult to break without introducing restrictions like unit caps, force org charts, or something along the lines of swedish comp back from warhammer fantasy. Restrictions are 100% necessary for a balanced wargame, and the rumors about a hard 3 unit cap would be a good starting point, though as others have mentioned not good enough on its own.

**Martel732**

30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.

**Xenomancers**

tripchimeras wrote:
40k is literally the only wargame I have ever been exposed to where the community this obstinately clings to the idea that restrictions are bad and points alone can fix everything... Redundancy is a powerful weapon, far more powerful then many seem to understand, and the power behind it goes way beyond things being simply improperly point costed. I don't know how many of you played fantasy but my username speaks to the power of redundancy, if any of you were familiar with Warhammer 8th edition you know of what I speak, and you know that triple chimeras rarely appeared on the tournament circuit despite GW never fixing their power, because of almost all of the restrictive comp systems in play making it crippling to take more then 2. Points alone do not really fix this, because what is well costed when taken alone can become crazy when taken in multiples of 4 or 5.

Someone above claimed that the same can be achieved by taking multiple units of similar types, but it is not the same unless their profiles and utilities are nearly identical. In a wargame the power of redundancy is very difficult to break without introducing restrictions like unit caps, force org charts, or something along the lines of swedish comp back from warhammer fantasy. Restrictions are 100% necessary for a balanced wargame, and the rumors about a hard 3 unit cap would be a good starting point, though as others have mentioned not good enough on its own.

OFC redundancy is powerful. Eventually an opponent runs out of effective weapons to deal with a redundant profile because they brought a TAC list. It can be a disadvantage if your opponent is prepared for it though - so it is not an issue of limitation - it is an issue of tactics.

**DCannon4Life**

Martel732 wrote:
30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.

That, alone, makes that alone insufficient. Point adjustments and unit restrictions aren't mutually exclusive.

**Martel732**

Fine with me then. As long as points aren't off the table as well. This kills my killshot list, i guess, but i'll give it up.

**Breng77**

Martel732 wrote:
30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.

By itself yes it is insufficient at addressing dark reaper spam. Though I would rather face 3 x 10 dark reapers than 1 x 9 and 3 x 3 like I did this weekend or 1x 10 and 7x 3. They are harder to hide, don't all have LOS ignoring weapons, are easier to target effectively etc. For what its worth though I think rules changes are needed to fix dark reapers not points changes, I think any reasonable points change to them as is makes them crap compared to other options.

**Daedalus81**

Breng77 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.

By itself yes it is insufficient at addressing dark reaper spam. Though I would rather face 3 x 10 dark reapers than 1 x 9 and 3 x 3 like I did this weekend or 1x 10 and 7x 3. They are harder to hide, don't all have LOS ignoring weapons, are easier to target effectively etc. For what its worth though I think rules changes are needed to fix dark reapers not points changes, I think any reasonable points change to them as is makes them crap compared to other options.

Yea part of DR spam is getting tons of Tempest Launchers in the mix. Who doesn't want 7 S4 AP2 shots?

**Bharring**

Would you rather face 3x9 or 9x3?

There are certainly upsides to 3-man units, but also remember that Ynnari, stratagems, and most powers scale with the size of the unit they target.

Serious question - I think I'd rather face 9x3, but I'm not certain.

**Breng77**

With Ynnari I'd rather face 9x3 only because of the fact that one squad gets to shoot twice, but it is close, if there is a lot of LOS blocking terrain I'll take the 3 x 9.. Non- ynnari 3 x 9 all day. The real question is would you rather face 3 x 9 or 1 x 9 and 6 x 3. Or 2 x 9 and 3 x 3 or some other method, the answer to that question IMO is always 3 x 9.

**auticus**

Drager wrote:
auticus wrote:
Point cost in general is a fallacy.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.

A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.

The fallacy of points is that points equal balance. They don't and never have. These discussions have been going on around the internet since AOL dialup chatroom days.

Therefore raising points on undercost units won't fix the balance in the game, it will simply make other units over/undercost and start the circle over again. The only way points equal balance iis if you are only using one scenario. Once you use multiple scenario, the point variables of a model change because a model's worth will vary from scenario to scenario. Sometimes minorly. Sometimes drastically.

**Lemondish**

Martel732 wrote:
I think your point is invalid. I'm not missing it.

With your proposal, there will be three flyrants, then three of the next most undercosted unit, then three of the next most undercosted unit. Codices without any undercosted units still lose.

I have made no proposals, so I'm not sure what you mean here. You were arguing against limits because they are 'bad'. You've been shown how they can be good, how they exist currently, yet have failed to actually support why they are 'bad'. You've also failed to articulate how another solution isn't fundamentally worse, or how points balancing can account for the various factors that can affect a unit midgame that change its relative value. Secondary to that, can you define, objectively, what an 'undercosted' unit looks like so that everybody knows, definitively, which units are undercosts and by how much? Is that just another wishy washy subjective decision you've made unilaterally?

**Galef**

DCannon4Life wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
30 dark reapers is still a thing with 0-3. That alone makes it insufficient.
That, alone, makes that alone insufficient. Point adjustments and unit restrictions aren't mutually exclusive.

Exactly. Reduce the max unit size to 5, AND add the 0-3 limit and now you can only get 15 total Reapers in a list, and can only buff 5 at a time.
Maybe up them to 30ppm total after that. That WOULD fix Reapers.

The 0-3 datasheets per army would reduce many, many issues overnight. There will always be points readjustments needed, but the 0-3 WILL cut down over 90% of the most egregious offenders.

And remember, that this would only apply to Matched Play anyway. If people want to spam, they can play Narrative or Open play.

-

**tripchimeras**

Xenomancers wrote:
tripchimeras wrote:
40k is literally the only wargame I have ever been exposed to where the community this obstinately clings to the idea that restrictions are bad and points alone can fix everything... Redundancy is a powerful weapon, far more powerful then many seem to understand, and the power behind it goes way beyond things being simply improperly point costed. I don't know how many of you played fantasy but my username speaks to the power of redundancy, if any of you were familiar with Warhammer 8th edition you know of what I speak, and you know that triple chimeras rarely appeared on the tournament circuit despite GW never fixing their power, because of almost all of the restrictive comp systems in play making it crippling to take more then 2. Points alone do not really fix this, because what is well costed when taken alone can become crazy when taken in multiples of 4 or 5.

Someone above claimed that the same can be achieved by taking multiple units of similar types, but it is not the same unless their profiles and utilities are nearly identical. In a wargame the power of redundancy is very difficult to break without introducing restrictions like unit caps, force org charts, or something along the lines of swedish comp back from warhammer fantasy. Restrictions are 100% necessary for a balanced wargame, and the rumors about a hard 3 unit cap would be a good starting point, though as others have mentioned not good enough on its own.

OFC redundancy is powerful. Eventually an opponent runs out of effective weapons to deal with a redundant profile because they brought a TAC list. It can be a disadvantage if your opponent is prepared for it though - so it is not an issue of limitation - it is an issue of tactics.

There are always three groups fighting against comp, the "I want it all and I refuse to accept the consequences group" that is always extremely well represented in any 40k comp discussion, the "no matter what you suggest I will point out how it is only an incremental improvement and that is just not good enough for some reason, so instead lets just keep it as broken as humanly possible" group and the most infuriating "If you have a problem with the game's balance you need to adjust your tactics" camp. Look rarely does a list have no counters, so I get what you are saying from that perspective, but good tactics are just not enough to compensate for the monumental balance issues a GW game has by their base nature. They are large scale, with massive model ranges, a huge number of factions, are designed to be casual gamer friendly, and revolve exclusively around limited statistic models where combat exclusively utilizes a d6. These games by their very nature are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to balance. The way to fix said balance is to create an ever evolving ruleset that seeks to incrementally fix the most glaring issues, and restrict the most egregious beneficiaries of redundancy. The way you do this can either be company led (what GW is half heatedly trying to do with the "living rulesset" in 8th) or through tournament comp systems. Without either, you have the tournament scene as it stands, something I think most everyone would like to see improved from a balance perspective. Utilizing better tactics cannot compensate for the inherent weaknesses of the 40k army design, I'm sorry they just can't. The only solution without fundamentally making the game unrecognizable, is more restrictive army creation. Now how that is achieved can come in multiple ways, that do not necessarily mean the banning of soup, or hard unit caps. 8th edition warhmammer fantasy had 3 different and fairly varied community comp systems that each went about trying to solve the problem in different ways and each achieved varying degrees of success. But "everything is fine, your tactics just suck" is not a solution.

**gendoikari87**

Please take this inane discussion elsewhere.

**MalfunctBot**

Bharring wrote:
What pointscost could possibly support using just a few of a unit sometimes if it gets better the more of them you take?

Lets do it this way, to remove some biases:
Fire Warriors gain:
Sphere Expansion: For every other friendly Fire Warrior unit on the board, gain +1S/T/A, and +1 shot when firing Rapid Fire

What point cost, approximately, would you point that at so it has it's uses, but isn't OP

I would never make that rule because it's bloody stupid and whoever came up with that should be fired.

Points and restrictions arn't the be all and end all of nerfing. Changing the actual bloody rules to not be brain-dead is always an option.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And everyone saying "If you just nerf X unit tournies will just spam Y unit instead" guess what? Even if a universal highlander is put in place, tournaments will STILL find the best units and use only those (or, in the case of troops, unit, since this change does nothing to effect them) which, due to this, will get nerfed in response, which will lead to only the next best units getting used, being repeated ad-infinitum until all units in the game are perfectly balanced and equally viable, which, as almost everyone has already pointed out, is simply not possible.

This change literally does nothing but make innocent, often FLUFFY/themed lists that arn't even that competitive (e.g. Bike armies, dread armies, Mek armies, Termie armies ect.) illegal because the all powerful, unstoppable net-list will always exist with the way that 40k is now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I just want the FAQ to come and put us all out of our misery. If all the rumours are true this FAQ is going to have more rules changes than Chapter Approved had.

**Daedalus81**

MalfunctBot wrote:

And everyone saying "If you just nerf X unit tournies will just spam Y unit instead" guess what? Even if a universal highlander is put in place, tournaments will STILL find the best units and use only those (or, in the case of troops, unit, since this change does nothing to effect them) which, due to this, will get nerfed in response, which will lead to only the next best units getting used, being repeated ad-infinitum until all units in the game are perfectly balanced and equally viable, which, as almost everyone has already pointed out, is simply not possible.

If the replacement is as good as what it replaced then it likely would have shown up prior.

At this point I just want the FAQ to come and put us all out of our misery.

Agree!

**Xenomancers**

auticus wrote:
Drager wrote:
auticus wrote:
Point cost in general is a fallacy.
Which fallacy? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.

A fallacy is defined as a mistaken belief.

The fallacy of points is that points equal balance. They don't and never have. These discussions have been going on around the internet since AOL dialup chatroom days.

Therefore raising points on undercost units won't fix the balance in the game, it will simply make other units over/undercost and start the circle over again. The only way points equal balance iis if you are only using one scenario. Once you use multiple scenario, the point variables of a model change because a model's worth will vary from scenario to scenario. Sometimes minorly. Sometimes drastically.

I think from reading some of your previous posts I know where you stand on this. Correct me if I am wrong.

You believe that points don't equal balance because of the situational nature of things. That is a good point - but it doesn't mean we can't strive to have a more even playing field. We can use math to balance units profiles in optimum situations. That might mean some units don't perform to expectation or some units are just flat out better most of the time but that is going to come down to how you play the unit. It should never be like it is now in a balanced game where - I spam this unit = I win. Clearly something is off if that is going on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
MalfunctBot wrote:

And everyone saying "If you just nerf X unit tournies will just spam Y unit instead" guess what? Even if a universal highlander is put in place, tournaments will STILL find the best units and use only those (or, in the case of troops, unit, since this change does nothing to effect them) which, due to this, will get nerfed in response, which will lead to only the next best units getting used, being repeated ad-infinitum until all units in the game are perfectly balanced and equally viable, which, as almost everyone has already pointed out, is simply not possible.

If the replacement is as good as what it replaced then it likely would have shown up prior.

At this point I just want the FAQ to come and put us all out of our misery.

Agree!

At the competitive level - if a unit is 1% more likely to outperform the other they will chose the 1% better unit. Personally - I think eldar are still top teir even with a nerf to reapers and spears. They have a lot of good options. Particularly their flyers are amazing (which were heavily countered by reapers - but no longer)

**jjb070707**

chalkobob wrote:
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 don't think that's quite fair to discount his analogy. In a competitive setting your list may be I'll equipped to counter that skew, but the next guy will demolish mutalisks leading to a tendency of balanced lists taking the overall victory. Skew is a healthy part of competitive strategy, helping to prevent invincible lists from emerging for very long. That being said, unwinnable match ups like imperial character shenanigans should be scarce, but making those lists illegal would give the lists they counter an unfair advantage in terms of match up percentage.