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.

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.

Armies without a Codex?

One idea could be providing two point costs for units. Use the normal value for armies that have all the same faction keywords, while using inflated values for mixed forces or detachments.

I wouldn't say it would accomplish nothing. The armies that are not up to par would be obvious and the armies that were too powerful could get nerfed, but it would still be easier to balance one codex vs another than to balance all of the permutations found by mixing books. I get that some people would find this to be bland, but for tournaments it would be the easiest fix. Most tournament players that I have met don't seem to care about what they take in their army as long as it wins. I don't hear them complaining about bland, especially when I see unit spam, now that's bland.

This forum is full of the most uncompetitive group of posters on the internet. I don't understand why everyone worries or cares about what goes on at large tournaments like this because you clearly aren't playing in these events. I was at adepticon and played in 2 of the "casual" events and had a great time with fluffy lists. If I would've played in the championship I would've brought different stuff and a different mindset. The game is what you make it and who you decide to play with. You can still play competitively and to win in a friendly game, the things aren't mutually exclusive.

Armies without a codex don't get to play in tournaments. But I don't know what army you are referring to because all of the armies with rules for the new edition have codices, maybe not individual books, but in the get you by codex (5 of them) that GW put out. This rules out Forgeworld and Imperial agents, but those could be added to existing codices later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I took this discussion to be about competitive tournament play. All other forms of play are naturally up to the players to derive their enjoyment. The difference is that in a fun game I can still play competitively, but if my friend rolls up to the table with 3 Baneblades and Mortarion and that's his army, I can say "Dude, I'm not going to have fun playing against that and I didn't bring an army that could play against that, in tournament, you just have to play against whatever shows up.

Orks no get codex :(

 ChargerIIC wrote:

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.

Define 'full'. I don't think any of the top 16 lists were using understrength detachments, unless you mean that all the optional slots must be filled out, in which case pretty much 99% of lists would become illegal except for that one guy playing a brigade...

That is exactly what I mean by full. Full. Every slot before you can take another detachment.
Getting rid of the supreme command detachment may also be a good idea but I don't think it would be necessary. Maybe limit it to not being your first detachment.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

Compared to what other companies in the industry are doing. Wizzards of the Coast, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press, pick one. None of them are creating flawless games, but all of them are lot closer to how games should be than GW currently is. The good news is that the new management at GW is trying to get there.

the fact that you include video games in the list makes you look silly.

 Kommisar wrote:
This forum is full of the most uncompetitive group of posters on the internet. I don't understand why everyone worries or cares about what goes on at large tournaments like this because you clearly aren't playing in these events. I was at adepticon and played in 2 of the "casual" events and had a great time with fluffy lists. If I would've played in the championship I would've brought different stuff and a different mindset. The game is what you make it and who you decide to play with. You can still play competitively and to win in a friendly game, the things aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you. To think only national players can decode and optimise lists is obtuse and shortsighted. Now because a few players may have been overwhelmed because their Reaper spam was demolished many of us may have to spend time and money to retool our army lists to comply with any changes.

I don't won't/like 16 WAAC players(example) deciding how I can play 40k.

 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).

It's worth is dependent on the army you face, but it also shows how bad they balanced the Chapter Tactics as well. It should encourage fighting against them with more than just a gunline, but there ya go.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

Compared to what other companies in the industry are doing. Wizzards of the Coast, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press, pick one. None of them are creating flawless games, but all of them are lot closer to how games should be than GW currently is. The good news is that the new management at GW is trying to get there.

the fact that you include video games in the list makes you look silly.

The fact that you think the 40k ruleset is anything more than a very simple video game makes you look silly.

Is it possible for a forum to jump the shark? Cause I feel like Dakka is at least standing on the shark's back at this point.

Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

 Byte wrote:
Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Indeed. Tournament players change their armies to take advantage of the rules or metagame all the time. When something becomes noncompetitive, it gets jettisoned without a second thought. They have no attachment to their armies or unit choices, or at the very least are strongly disincentivized from doing so. Asking them to change their lists is no great sacrifice, they'd do so anyway at the drop of a hat if an advantage could be gained thereby.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Indeed. Tournament players change their armies to take advantage of the rules or metagame all the time. When something becomes noncompetitive, it gets jettisoned without a second thought. They have no attachment to their armies or unit choices, or at the very least are strongly disincentivized from doing so. Asking them to change their lists is no great sacrifice, they'd do so anyway at the drop of a hat if an advantage could be gained thereby.

And this is exactly why a 40k designed by tournament players is a very bad idea.

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

1. Write codex for orks so they would not be 1 unit army
2. Apply limit like 'take 1 copy of unit for every 750 points of format'
3. profit

-Sentinel- wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

1. Write codex for orks so they would not be 1 unit army
2. Apply limit like 'take 1 copy of unit for every 750 points of format'
3. profit

This wouldn't fix anything, just shift the balance from armies that have a few great units to armies that have more balanced codices with lots of competitive choices (I'm looking at you Nids). At the same time you'll screw over some of the thematic armies that people like to play: mono god demons are the most obvious losers.

kaptin_Blacksquigg wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

1. Write codex for orks so they would not be 1 unit army
2. Apply limit like 'take 1 copy of unit for every 750 points of format'
3. profit

This wouldn't fix anything, just shift the balance from armies that have a few great units to armies that have more balanced codices with lots of competitive choices (I'm looking at you Nids). At the same time you'll screw over some of the thematic armies that people like to play: mono god demons are the most obvious losers.

I don't believe that mono god daemons with 3 units of this and 3 units of those won't make 2k army. If it would not be competitive - thats another question. But when all armies at top tables having 6+ same squads - it is just bad for game health. Cause you nerf those squad, people choose another and make list of 6+ another squads.

That balanced codicies would dominate - thats a bad argument. Cause thats a purpose of game designers - make that people use different units and had to make choice between them.

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

I agree. Even if troops are exempt I would much rather see a solution that isn't just an artificial limit. The Tau fix is terrible and destroys army building. Imperial/Chaos armies with larger pools of units to draw from will shrug it off like nothing, Soup will be even stronger since variety is more important. Harlequins are effectively unplayable without turning to soup.

I hope the FAQ bans the term "meta".

So it's just named differently. Whopedoopedoo. That would be such a ridiculous ban.

They copy-pasted the error from the Necron beta version that Deathmarks and Praetorians are troops to the new codex.
Proof reading is something that GW never really did.

A perennial problem is that people simply spam the best units. This leads to uninteresting lists. One solution would be to assign points costs based on how many of each unit you take. If you take a single unit you pay the printed cost. If you take two of the same unit, the second costs an extra x percent. Something like an extra 15 percent. If you take three then you pay an extra y percent on the third, and x percent on the second. Maybe an extra 30 percent.

It certainly would not solve everything, but would lead to more variety.

You go back to the issue of screwing over armies with poor internal balance, or worse army with a small unit pool.

As if IOM don't get enough benefits already.

Tournaments are about winning, not about interesting lists or variety. People go there to win. Period. There is no point in trying to force changes to make things "interesting". Not to mention that the definition of what is interesting is different between two people.

If the problem is spamming of specific units put an allowance cap on them. 0-2 Space Marine Scouts, 0-1 Monoliths, 0-3 Cultists, etc. (These are only examples)

If that displeases people because 'well I can't just take the best units now' then the point would be to adapt?

I'm not sure how you can add extra costs on top for each unit in a way that would penalize the tournament crowd for spamming but not harm everyone else for taking 3 or more tactical squads (example).

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Tournaments are about winning, not about interesting lists or variety. People go there to win. Period. There is no point in trying to force changes to make things "interesting". Not to mention that the definition of what is interesting is different between two people.

40k prize pools are not worthwhile enough to be just about winning. If it was just about winning, there are far more satisfying ventures out there. The people who go to tournaments don't just enjoy winning, they enjoy the game itself. They just enjoy it at a competitive level. If the game isn't interesting at a competitive level, competitive players will leave.

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

The issue with restricting spam is that GW doesn't want to prevent someone from buying as many of a particular unit as they can.
While putting a cap of, say, no more than 2 duplicate datasheets are allowed per Battle-Forged army in Matched Play (cap of 3 duplicates for Troops and maybe Transports) would be a fair way to reduce spam, it might hurt GW sales.
The mere perception of reduced sales is enough to make GW hesitate to implement a change, even if it promotes the general health of the game.

The solution has to be enforced by the TOs and competitive players themselves. And afterall, this makes perfect sense considering that those demographics are the ones calling for change. Casual players (which I suspect form the vast bulk of GW's actual customer base) either don't care too much about spam or rarely ever encounter it.

-

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.