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.

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Spoletta wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Like it or not, force org is making a comeback. GW moves the goal every few weeks and you chase. Put on your running shoes if you wanna keep up.

Pancakey wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Like it or not, force org is making a comeback. GW moves the goal every few weeks and you chase. Put on your running shoes if you wanna keep up.

Why do you think so? I'm not seeing these changes you speak of.
Look at Dark Eldar, they are designed to make an even more extreme use of the detachment system.

Spoletta wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Like it or not, force org is making a comeback. GW moves the goal every few weeks and you chase. Put on your running shoes if you wanna keep up.

Why do you think so? I'm not seeing these changes you speak of.
Look at Dark Eldar, they are designed to make an even more extreme use of the detachment system.

I think GW is more about moving goalposts now than ever. They arent evolving the ruleset. GW are just moving the same rules around in a swirling motion.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Aren't you both suggesting the old 3E version of army building ( or a slight variation thereof)?

Why not just label each unit as 0- X per detachment or even just per army with a max of 3 of any of the really spammable HQs since you're still likely to see 3 of them anyway?

No, it would be X numbers of the same unit PER ARMY regardless of Detachments. So in our example, you could only use 3 Chaos Sorcerers, regardless of the type (jump, terminator, or normal). Or 6 of a type of troop, so 6 units of guardsmen in your entire army (whether they be 40 man or MSU's)

Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

Right, missions dictate power... at the same point, we saw the list with what was it... 9 PBC's or some crap which made it pretty far up there? Spam is spam. The idea isn't to nerf a particular unit, but to nerf spammability.

I mean, you can tie it to detachments if you wanted to, but then how do you address other spots? For example, if you did 0-3 of a Heavy Choice per detachment, people could still do PBC spam, or 0-6 of a troop choice then people could do the "Brigade of CP" from AM.

So I haven’t really dived into 8th edition 40k yet, largely because of the spam I see at every major tournament. It was flyrants at adepticon, but every major event has suffered from it. The first gt heat in the uk was won by razorback spam and that’s pretty much set the tone.
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.
It has been interesting watching the contrasting reactions of the two systems coming out of adepticon. The reaction of the AOS side has been overwhelming in positive with some amazing hobby on display.
With 40k you have players getting disqualified, major issues with spam and warhammer live not showing the top tables because the armies look rubbish.
This is gw’s Game and they obviously want it to be played a certain way but they seem reluctant to force the players into that mold.
Personally I think they should put up with some short term pain for long term benefit.

Chikout wrote:
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.

Because that means less models sold.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.

Because that means less models sold.

Maybe but the AOS adepticon tournament doubled in size this year and judging by the reaction afterwards next year may well be even bigger. 40k is obvioulsy much more popular but growing the playerbase with fun to watch videos on twitch and positive player reactions from tournaments is a much better way to sell more models.

Chikout wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.

Because that means less models sold.

Maybe but the AOS adepticon tournament doubled in size this year and judging by the reaction afterwards next year may well be even bigger. 40k is obvioulsy much more popular but growing the playerbase with fun to watch videos on twitch and positive player reactions from tournaments is a much better way to sell more models.

WHFB never sold enough for GW to really care, that's why they did AOS because losing their WHFB playerbase would mean literally less than zero.

Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. GW needs to turn over the rules creation to a company that knows what they are doing... Fantasy Flight, WizKids, Battlefront Miniatures, Warlord, etc. They are more than welcome to hire them to write the rules and slap the GW/Citadel name on the book. That's just fine. Just please, please let another company who has been far more successful in writing tabletop miniature game rules take over writing the rules for 40K and AoS. And, whatever happens, do not let WotC touch it. What they've done to MTG Standard recently makes me want to cry.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. GW needs to turn over the rules creation to a company that knows what they are doing... Fantasy Flight, WizKids, Battlefront Miniatures, Warlord, etc. They are more than welcome to hire them to write the rules and slap the GW/Citadel name on the book. That's just fine. Just please, please let another company who has been far more successful in writing tabletop miniature game rules take over writing the rules for 40K and AoS. And, whatever happens, do not let WotC touch it. What they've done to MTG Standard recently makes me want to cry.

SG

As someone who plays tons of other games (including FFG games, Magic the Gathering (for a while), Flames of War, and Bolt Action), I find it funny that you believe other companies will do a better job. Those games I have played have their own horrible internal issues that require rectification and FAQ more often than not.

Magic is better than most, but also has a vastly different structure for how the game is played and a huge variety of formats.Cards like Demonic Tutor are outright banned, while older cards have to play in less common formats, or if you want to play in a Commander event you can only have one copy of a card, etc. etc.

They are starting to learn let's just hope they can actually help thier in house staff understand their players, why they do things and then design the 9th edition game based on that, and that the managment realise that keeping the good rules wrighters is important.

It weird in someways that a company as big in such a small market has been getting so much so wrong for so long, but has got away with it.
They seam to realise that they realy did screw up and are doing it differentky this time, but they are so out of touch they are basically starting from zero experience with everything they have done 8th onwards.
But they appear to be going roughly in the right direction, if maybe not in as smooth a transition as we as gamers would like.

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

Either involves a substantial set of house rules - known as the tournament pack - probably including missions and additional objectives not found in the core game.

GW shouldn't be making balance choices based on the feedback of events run on house rules.

Now, using the events to look for data on unclear or problematic interpretations of core rule elements? Sure, they're good for that.

But not for balance, until they actually play the game as set out in the CRB/CA.

I thought someone did the math and figured out that players who went 2nd had a slight advantage at LVO?

In ITC going 1st advantage is significantly reduced because points are scored after 2nd turn so player going 2nd has a chance to kill enemy units off objectives, grab his own, etc.

I'm not convinced that "alpha strike" is a big deal. But then again I wasn't there at Adepticon. Maybe I missed something.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

This isn't true, though. They have fundamentally different missions and ways to score, as well as different terrain. Terrain isn't tied to game rules, and missions aren't exactly rules, either. So saying the missions are house rules... i mean that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. And you throw reason out of the window when you say "all custom missions are equivalent."

If all custom missions are equivalent, let's play a game where the mission is called "Marmatag automatically wins." Just as balanced as LVO, right?

ThePorcupine wrote:
I thought someone did the math and figured out that players who went 2nd had a slight advantage at LVO?

In ITC going 1st advantage is significantly reduced because points are scored after 2nd turn so player going 2nd has a chance to kill enemy units off objectives, grab his own, etc.

I'm not convinced that "alpha strike" is a big deal. But then again I wasn't there at Adepticon. Maybe I missed something.

I'm not convinced that the results of 2 1/2 hour games that don't typically make it out of round 3 are even relevant sample games to determine army balance - the game is intended to end after the turns reach their limit - not half way through it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

This isn't true, though. They have fundamentally different missions and ways to score, as well as different terrain. Terrain isn't tied to game rules, and missions aren't exactly rules, either. So saying the missions are house rules... i mean that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. And you throw reason out of the window when you say "all custom missions are equivalent."

If all custom missions are equivalent, let's play a game where the mission is called "Marmatag automatically wins." Just as balanced as LVO, right?

We know - each tournament uses their own effective house rules. This screws the results between tournament to tournament. This is not effective balancing material. This multi million dollar company needs to hire a group of people to play their game the way they intend it to be played. Fix internal balance - fix external balance - write rules that can't be abused or interpreted different ways. Then - there you have it. There is your tournament rule set. No need for special missions/or objectives. No need for quarterly CA that gets put on hold because of the house rules of 1 big tournament.

You can say that but even GW's own CA missions vrs BRB mission dramatically effect balance. Play a turn scored game vrs and end of game scoring, objectives vrs just pure murdering the other guys army.

ITC were trying to balance out the alpha strike bonus.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

Its bad because it turns the game one dimensional; a game of 10 PBC's versus 7 Flyrants would be a very, very boring thing to play (and watch). People use spam because it wins, but even then, they themselves hate the fact they have to do it to win.

This is a game, not a "real army simulator"; most players will tell you they like seeing varied models and armies across the table, not the same model over and over and over and over.... Even though the FOC of earlier editions was flawed, at least it forced people to take somewhat different stuff.

 Zid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

Its bad because it turns the game one dimensional; a game of 10 PBC's versus 7 Flyrants would be a very, very boring thing to play (and watch). People use spam because it wins, but even then, they themselves hate the fact they have to do it to win.

This is a game, not a "real army simulator"; most players will tell you they like seeing varied models and armies across the table, not the same model over and over and over and over.... Even though the FOC of earlier editions was flawed, at least it forced people to take somewhat different stuff.

I played 12 Exalted Flamers until the Daemon Codex came out. I loved it and had tons of fun.

I did not hate that I had to do it. It was great to use those models after never having used them before.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

This isn't true, though. They have fundamentally different missions and ways to score, as well as different terrain. Terrain isn't tied to game rules, and missions aren't exactly rules, either. So saying the missions are house rules... i mean that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. And you throw reason out of the window when you say "all custom missions are equivalent."

If all custom missions are equivalent, let's play a game where the mission is called "Marmatag automatically wins." Just as balanced as LVO, right?

Dude, did you read that first paragraph and skip the next two? The key point is that any of these big events are deviating from the core game - which means that making balance decisions based on people building armies designed for that set of house rules is a mistake.

Both Adepticon and ITC events are bad as a balance guide because they're not playing 40k - they're playing "Adepticon 40k" or "ITC 40k", neither of which are the 40k that GW produces as a product.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

Its bad because it turns the game one dimensional; a game of 10 PBC's versus 7 Flyrants would be a very, very boring thing to play (and watch). People use spam because it wins, but even then, they themselves hate the fact they have to do it to win.

This is a game, not a "real army simulator"; most players will tell you they like seeing varied models and armies across the table, not the same model over and over and over and over.... Even though the FOC of earlier editions was flawed, at least it forced people to take somewhat different stuff.

I played 12 Exalted Flamers until the Daemon Codex came out. I loved it and had tons of fun.

I did not hate that I had to do it. It was great to use those models after never having used them before.

Suppose its different strokes for different folks then Anyone who uses the PBC list, hates it, lol. Even though it rolls through ITC missions

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

But artillery companies don't single-handedly delete enemy armies, armour companies don't roll into cities and hold them, and infantry companies generally don't punch through hardened positions without support from other types of assets.

Combined arms makes the whole stronger than the sum of its parts. The current situation in 40k is like having a fleet consisting of nothing but carriers running all over a carrier battlegroup with submarine support, or an armored division blitzing into a city centre and not getting completely murdered.

Everything's supposed to have a weakness; a list that's just the same repeated over and over that can compete at the highest levels clearly doesn't have enough of a weakness.

I'm with Marmatag that it's a bit kneejerky to go full ham on nerfing Hive Tyrants and that they're very dependent on missions, but they certainly warrant some thought as to how to make the rest of the army more viable vis-a-vis Hive Tyrants without nerfing the Hive Tyrants to the ground.

I'm personally in favour of nerfing tyrants invul saves a little, while simultaneously buffing tyrant guard with an extra defensive rule that only affects non-flying tyrants. To encourage a bit more of the classic walking tyrant with guard.

Nerf the tyrants regular invul save back down to a 5++.
Give the tyrant guard a 'Fortress of Chitin' rule that improves the armour and invul saves of the walking tyrant they are protecting by 1, while also allowing the tyrant guard to use the tyrants invul.
(fortress of chitin was an old formation that did something pretty similar)

This means there is actually something to weigh up between flying and walking tyrants, rather than just paying a few more points for improved abilities.
Either you get speed + deepstrike, or improved defenses.

It also fixes the issue where tyrant guards are just ablative wounds for a tyrant, while paying almost as much per (more easily removed) wound as a tyrant pays. Meaning that people just put those points towards more tyrants instead.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

That’s why I don’t play there any more - just not worth it IMO.

I don't think I've ever played at a tournament that had reasonable amounts of terrain - LOS blocking or otherwise. It's always been something like one piece of terrain in each quarter and something insignificant in the middle, if you're lucky.

Fly over for NOVA.

Arson Fire wrote:
I'm personally in favour of nerfing tyrants invul saves a little, while simultaneously buffing tyrant guard with an extra defensive rule that only affects non-flying tyrants. To encourage a bit more of the classic walking tyrant with guard.

Nerf the tyrants regular invul save back down to a 5++.
Give the tyrant guard a 'Fortress of Chitin' rule that improves the armour and invul saves of the walking tyrant they are protecting by 1, while also allowing the tyrant guard to use the tyrants invul.
(fortress of chitin was an old formation that did something pretty similar)

This means there is actually something to weigh up between flying and walking tyrants, rather than just paying a few more points for improved abilities.
Either you get speed + deepstrike, or improved defenses.

It also fixes the issue where tyrant guards are just ablative wounds for a tyrant, while paying almost as much per (more easily removed) wound as a tyrant pays. Meaning that people just put those points towards more tyrants instead.

This would work to stop or at least slow down the Flying Tyrant spam lists, but wouldn't save walking Tyrants. Walking Tyrants have issues that increased durability won't fix unless you increase their durability to an absurd extent. Walking Tyrants suffer from being expensive and not being able to impact the game for 3-4 turns. They don't give out buffs, their guns don't do enough damage to make up for the cost, and they don't hit hard enough in CC to be worth paying for a pod to deep strike them in. Without deep striking they are not making meaningful charges till turn 3. I could easily see taking a walking Tyrant with any build and having my opponent ignore it. They look scary, but just don't do enough for the cost.

Making Tyrant Guard better at protecting them isn't going to help fix them without changing the Tyrant as well. More killy AND more durable might work-but making them more killy encourages deep striking them, and the goal is to make people want to run them like you see in the fluff, not add another alpha strike to the game.

Instead, I would want to see them get a durability increase and hand out buffs. The most fun I ever had with Tyranids was in fifth edition, when you could combine Hive Tyrant and Tervigon auras to make super dangerous 5 point Termagants. Having Hive Tyrants hand out rerolls, or letting them give out an extra Hive Fleet trait, or giving them casting shenanigans. Have the wings upgrade make it so that whatever buff they give out only applies to units with wings, that way taking a Flyrant with Chrones/Harpies/Shrikes/Gargoyles is more viable.

I don’t know why anyone would try to play walking tyrants competitively... you can always keep winged ones on the ground.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Genuine question for those of you who are FOR the restriction, game wide, of HQ's, etc.

What do you expect armies like Custodes, for example, to do?

With only 3 (Same exact name and keywords, just with different armor on) HQs and one named HQ, if restricted in the same was as Tau where they could only take one <Commander> per detachment, they quite literally could only ever take one Captain and then their named HQ as an option.

My concern is with impacting elite armies who, by nature, have a very limited range of options. Tau were restricted, but their Coldstar Commander is bonkers strong and they have access to some very strong, very cheap HQ options in the form of Fireblades to offset this change.

(Edit: Just let it be known, something as simple as "You can only have 3 of each HQ Choices, army wide, in a battleforged list" would accomplish the same result as Tau did, but allow for actual elite armies to still be viable in their construction without shoe horning them into using functionally useless HQ slots.)

The Tau restriction is terrible and I do not think it will help the game in any way to spread it around. Tau lists are now shoehorned into taking multiple detachments or lose 1/3 of their good anti-tank. Making a maximum of 3 per army would have a similiar effect where you have to decide between multiple detachments or spamming HQs that are near useless in multiples. Limiting HQs also does nothing for spamming normal units. It's a bad fix that mostly has weight from the rampant hate for Tau. Commander spam wasn't even winning tournaments. Tyranids are in the same boat, they have 5 total tournament lists, not counting Adepticon, that made top 5 for all of 2017 and 2018.