Zustiur wrote:
I'm pretty sure the easiest way to prevent things like HQ spam is to say you can't take a 2nd detachment until the first one is full.
That should resolve most of the soup issues too.
Add in a limitation that prevents the CP battery effect, like, you can only spend CPs from a detachment on that detachment.

Improving tournament balance isn't complicated. Though as noted by many, perfect balance is impossible.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
When 8th First came out, the way the page on detachments was written [Doesn't it specifically say they'll introduce new ones later?] suggested to me when Codex's came out everyone was going to get their own unique non generic detachments that came with themed bonuses and rewarded fluffy styles of army.

I am still amazed this hasn''t come to pass.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't know that it'd kill it. But I think there is a real risk that the 'perfect' balance demanded by some would see some of the character of the game lost.

I think it would almost certainly lead to a loss of character and flavour across the board and that would be a real shame. The flavour of the armies is what makes 40k appeal (to me at least).

The thing that I first thought when I saw the adepticon winning tyranid list as a tyranid player myself was, when have you EVER heard of a tyranid swarm in the fluff that consisted pretty much of hive tyrants and mawlocs?! The answer to the best of my knowledge is never.

When 8th dropped they said they wanted to reward players for fielding armies that represented how that army plays in the fluff and I think this is where GW have failed if they've failed at all so far. To me it should be:

Battleforged - +3CP
Battleforged and all TYRANIDS - +3CP and access to tyranid stratagems

After that, there should be faction specific detachment charts with associated restrictions and rules to reflect the way that swarm or chapter or whatever fights. Want the hive fleet behemoth army wide special trait, warlord trait, stratagem etc? Well then you have to have at least one behemoth battalion detachment in your army. What's a behemoth detachment? Well it could be that they get +3CP for each spearhead detachment they use instead of +1 to represent the fact that behemoth specialises in monstrous creatures. For Kraken you could do something around the battalion and troops, or the outrider detachment for Jormungandr or whichever is meant to specialise in raveners and fast attack. Make unfluffy detachments like supreme command -1 or more CP to make them less desirable. Would someone take 7 hive tyrants if they lost a load of command points as well as access to hive fleet traits, strats etc for doing So? Maybe but it's a much less desirable option straight away.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

Are you saying that there should be 2 different rule sets?

I am all for a balanced and playtested game. But I am also convinced that if GW produced a "watertight and (almost) perfectly balanced" game system including codexes it would be so watered down and bland that there would be very little left for casual players.

tneva82 wrote:
White scars 1 for bike squad? Why? Certainly bikes aren't core of white scar armies so unfluffy

 Fafnir wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

Are you saying that there should be 2 different rule sets?

I am all for a balanced and playtested game. But I am also convinced that if GW produced a "watertight and (almost) perfectly balanced" game system including codexes it would be so watered down and bland that there would be very little left for casual players.

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup. Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness? The systems and factions can be wildly disparate, so long as they function together on reasonably equal footing. Plenty of other games do this just fine, GW should not be an exception.

Galas wrote:Lets be honest here. All the "balanced and well written systems" have the flavour of a potato. Not because factions don't have interesting tactics and strategies, they have, but THOSE tactics and strategies normally are very mathematical and... yeah. Precise. Sterile.

Yeah yeah, they offer another rewarding experience about tactical choices... but thats not for what Warhammer was created.

I'll agree that with 8th many of that flavour has been lost, but is being brought back with the Codexes.

I just miss crazy rules like the old Steam Tank ones or the Fantasy Giant. Those kind of rules aren't find in "competitive" and balanced rulesets. Now, to this I'll add, that this does not excuse the poor balance GW shows. They could, with the current rules they have, have a much better and well written game. But they are definetely improving.

jhnbrg wrote:
...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup. Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness? The systems and factions can be wildly disparate, so long as they function together on reasonably equal footing. Plenty of other games do this just fine, GW should not be an exception.

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering that most of those factions are just different colours of Space Marines, it's not that difficult to work with. While not a tabletop example, Street Fighter 4 had over 40 characters in it by the end of its run, and was still reasonably well balanced, with most characters feeling like entirely different games (far more variation than you'd see across Space Marine factions, that's for sure) and catering to a very wide degree of playstyles. Now, the 40k community might not be the competitive environment that has tournaments that offer $30,000 prize pools, but that should not stop it from being able to do balance and flavour at the same time.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering that most of those factions are just different colours of Space Marines, it's not that difficult to work with. While not a tabletop example, Street Fighter 4 had over 40 characters in it by the end of its run, and was still reasonably well balanced, with most characters feeling like entirely different games (far more variation than you'd see across Space Marine factions, that's for sure) and catering to a very wide degree of playstyles. Now, the 40k community might not be the competitive environment that has tournaments that offer $30,000 prize pools, but that should not stop it from being able to do balance and flavour at the same time.

If each faction had just one unit and one playstyle then street fighter might be a relevant comparison but each faction has a lot of different units with different playstyles. A Trukk is not the same as a rhino, stormboyz does not play the same as assault marines. With your wiev each faction will only have one defining playstyle and for example each and every ork army would be the same.

 Fafnir wrote:

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup.

Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness?

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering 40k's huge imbalance, it actually encourages far more restricted playstyles, since only a few options are ever relevant.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup.

In theory yes, and as long as that's whats a happening, I certainly support such balancing efforts. However, you only need to read prominent demands of 'balance fixes' people want to understand how it can lead to blandness. There are recent threads about banning allies and banning index options for the sake of balance.

Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness?

It doesn't. But several people's misguided idea of good game design does.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering 40k's huge imbalance, it actually encourages far more restricted playstyles, since only a few options are ever relevant.

I totally agree with you here and as i have stated before i am all for a better balanced rule set. The problem is that for every step towards a watertight and perfectly balanced rule set some flavour and diversity have to be sacrificed.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
When 8th First came out, the way the page on detachments was written [Doesn't it specifically say they'll introduce new ones later?] suggested to me when Codex's came out everyone was going to get their own unique non generic detachments that came with themed bonuses and rewarded fluffy styles of army.

I am still amazed this hasn''t come to pass.

They got burned hard by this in 7th. Stragnely, the this is the same time that theme lists became the predominant idea of play in WMH. Goes to show what a couple broken themes can do if you aren't careful. WMH nerfed theirs when it happened and the players loved it. GW didn't and now the players form a pitchfork mob at the slightest chance of it coming back.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're assuming options must be cut. OR we could make sure the proper points are paid for said options. It isn't either/or like you're making it to be.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're assuming options must be cut. OR we could make sure the proper points are paid for said options. It isn't either/or like you're making it to be.

The problem is that you cant put a points cost to everything. How much is army wide -1 to hit worth?
Points cost is only a part of the balancing, you need to ensure that all the different factions with all their various options have the same chance of winning against all the other different options if you are aiming for a perfect tournament balance. At some point you must begin to eliminate options if you are aiming for a perfect balance.

I agree that the point costs as they are can be better balanced (and GW is at least making an effort at adjusting them).

Andykp wrote:
What worries me is all the talk of limiting HQs and allies or removing FOC. in a way a lot of people on here are right, most the changes won't impact me or my mates the way we play. But more and more I see the division between competative and casual play the more I think we should have separate rule sets, slimmed down codexs for tournaments, reduced numbers of weapons. A bit like epic 40000 when it came out.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I'll balance the game right now, "All of the units in a tournament legal army must come from one codex", there, done, balanced. And before I get flamed by people who say that not all books are even, let me say that is easier to bring a codex even with the others than it is to balance the unlimited permutations of armies created by combining codices. You would also get fluffier armies. Of coarse GW will not do this because they want to sell models.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I'll balance the game right now, "All of the units in a tournament legal army must come from one codex", there, done, balanced. And before I get flamed by people who say that not all books are even, let me say that is easier to bring a codex even with the others than it is to balance the unlimited permutations of armies created by combining codices. You would also get fluffier armies. Of coarse GW will not do this because they want to sell models.