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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's more effort to do that than to just fix the units that are too good or too bad.

It really isn't. Part of the problem is that with the FOC gone it's too easy to spam and soup every balance mistake GW makes. Putting percentage caps, or even removing all the detachments and going back to single FOC, puts a limit on how much of your list can be the overpowered thing and forces you to bring other stuff. It's an inherently better structure that mitigates balance mistakes. Fixing individual units is obviously something that should be done as well, but unit-specific fixes alone are likely to just change which unit is the overpowered one that everyone exploits.

Spam and soup are different problems combining them and saying a single FOC fixes all is throwing the mateium out with thw warp.

Forcing everything into a single FOC punishes armies with sub par troops massively.
You have also broken the CP system, even assuming its given out for % of the foc filled it still punishes expensive armies into having no hope of building CP

Oh so soup, how about no you loose all strategums and triats with a single foc.

The only partially viable solution is % caps and thats still going to punish certain codex's over others.

 Marmatag wrote:
Sisters have access to the full range of Imperial HQs.

So? So in this frankly asinine highlander system you people I'm very glad don't work at GW because man, did I not realize how good those guys actually are until ya'll started trying to do their job, have if I want to play SoB I HAVE to take other imperial commanders? I can't play my army at all unless I bring outside help like Jacobus and SM Commanders? Do you really not see how stupid that is to be a core list building requirement?

Are you gonna carry that over into other armies? Are Imperial guard required to take a captain and a wolf priest now? Do dark angels have to take Dante and a wolf guard battle leader? Do Tyranids have to take a Coldstar and a Succubus? I wanna know how far down into this ridiculous kneejerk we have to go.

Oh, and as dumb as this whole system is, the percentage thing is actually significantly worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's more effort to do that than to just fix the units that are too good or too bad.

It really isn't. Part of the problem is that with the FOC gone it's too easy to spam and soup every balance mistake GW makes. Putting percentage caps, or even removing all the detachments and going back to single FOC, puts a limit on how much of your list can be the overpowered thing and forces you to bring other stuff. It's an inherently better structure that mitigates balance mistakes. Fixing individual units is obviously something that should be done as well, but unit-specific fixes alone are likely to just change which unit is the overpowered one that everyone exploits.

In theory though, if the units were fixed you wouldn't NEED a percentage system in the first place. No amount of percentages is going to make certain units balanced (Scatterbikes were a broken unit in 7th even if you were only allowed one unit, right?), and it won't make units stand out (if the army hasn't any really good Fast Attack choices, then the army is even more hamstrung on what "good units" to bring).

Random suggestions:

1. units that assault out of deep strike never count as charging - so never automatically go first, but fight in the alternating order

2. make shooting through a friendly unit impossible again - shows that pass within 1" of a friendly model not allowed - limits "castling" to a degree

3. make shooting through an enemy unit provide -1 to hit (so you can once more screen units) - defined as shots passing within 1" of another model in another unit - consider model by model, so some may be screened others not

4. ruins block line of sight through them, can see in and out, but never through

5. "tall" area terrain as #4 (e.g. woods)

6. movement penalties for terrain, not massive ones, just -1" or -2" etc, but make scatter terrain do something

7. cover for infantry units to be considered model by model - so a unit half in and half out of cover has half its models get the benefit and half not - the firing player nominates if they are aiming at those within or without cover for where hits must be allocated before they can go to the other (so a larger infantry unit can say protect a weapon team, leader etc and smaller items of cover do something - provides an alternative to a headlong charge)

8. bring back the (5th edition?) rule noting that 25% of the table should be terrain, ideally with roughly a third as LoS blocking a third providing cover and a third being flat but providing movement penalties. ideally release Codex: Battlefields with a totally revised terrain section


thinking is less in the way or arbitrary bans and restrictions (e.g. no assault on T1 etc) but to provide a mechanic that provides other options and removes the focus on the T1 strike by allowing other alternatives to be viable

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

It also in no way looks like an army, similar to how if I ran 15 space marine commanders it wouldn’t look like an army. I’m not suggesting no one likes these armies or plays them, but most do it for a rules advantage not because fluff.

You know what also in no way looks like an army? The one-of-everything forces that some people on here think are the correct way to build your armies.

And I advocated one of everything where? So that is a straw man. I’m looking for more variety and more difficult limited spamming. In my set up you could still bring 3 flyrants, you could then bring 6-9 copies of any non troop (depending on limit of 2 or 3). It just costs a bit more to do it. It is a means of balance.

leopard wrote:
Random suggestions:

1. Are deepstriking chargers really that impactful? Seems more like deep striking shooting. Besides, screens...

2. Assuming indirect fire can shoot over intervening friendly units. I thought the complaint was already with guard's artillery behind infantry. Also, why make this change to discourage casting when your first suggestion is a change that takes away a counter to castling...

3. Except because of point 2, this rule should never come into effect (other than maybe turn 1) because units hiding behind their friends can't shoot

4-6 yes

7. Why? Wouldn't this make hiding a specialist harder? If you have half a squad in cover and half out, the shooter only needs to kill half as many models to get to the specialist. Just adds complications.

8. Yes. Terrain is good.

Is the problem turn 1? Or us the problem denial? If there was no restriction on the number of deepstrikers a list could use, wouldn't one always deepstrike the entire list so as to always 1) always get the first strike and 2) be in the most effective position when doing so?

ERJAK wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Sisters have access to the full range of Imperial HQs.

So? So in this frankly asinine highlander system you people I'm very glad don't work at GW because man, did I not realize how good those guys actually are until ya'll started trying to do their job, have if I want to play SoB I HAVE to take other imperial commanders? I can't play my army at all unless I bring outside help like Jacobus and SM Commanders? Do you really not see how stupid that is to be a core list building requirement?

Are you gonna carry that over into other armies? Are Imperial guard required to take a captain and a wolf priest now? Do dark angels have to take Dante and a wolf guard battle leader? Do Tyranids have to take a Coldstar and a Succubus? I wanna know how far down into this ridiculous kneejerk we have to go.

Oh, and as dumb as this whole system is, the percentage thing is actually significantly worse.

it's only stupid because SoB aren't a properly fleshed out army at this point. They've been barely supported for so long, the system shouldn't be restrained by an underdeveloped faction. We know attention is coming to then in 2019 and it would just mean giving them a couple more HQs then, were this something GW ever wanted to do.

Not saying I totally agree with the suggestion, but I found your reply a bit of an overreaction.

Breng77 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

It also in no way looks like an army, similar to how if I ran 15 space marine commanders it wouldn’t look like an army. I’m not suggesting no one likes these armies or plays them, but most do it for a rules advantage not because fluff.

You know what also in no way looks like an army? The one-of-everything forces that some people on here think are the correct way to build your armies.

And I advocated one of everything where? So that is a straw man. I’m looking for more variety and more difficult limited spamming. In my set up you could still bring 3 flyrants, you could then bring 6-9 copies of any non troop (depending on limit of 2 or 3). It just costs a bit more to do it. It is a means of balance.

I said you advocated that where? Tighten the reading comprehension up.

There are plenty of people on here pushing for systems where everything except troops is 0-1 because according to them that's fluffy and taking two rhinos is too much spam.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Honestly, making Reserves come randomly and only on turn 2 would be a REALLY strong move towards balancing First and Second turns.

Right now, there is absolutely no reason to start a unit on the table if it can Deepstrike. This is stupid. Strategy games should always be about making decisions.

It's the exact same thing with Plasma. Since it's basically risk-free to Overheat all the time, people just Overheat all the time.

1) You're right, but I'm not sure how to fix it. "Reserves come in randomly" doesn't really fix it, as either it is so random the choice is automatically not to deepstrike (e.g. something like a 4+ with no re-rolls or modifiers per unit) or it is "random-but-not-really" (e.g. Comes in on a 2+, Special Character X re-rolls 1s for reserve rolls)

2) It's not risk free. The problem with plasma overheat is the re-rolls from characters, not the plasma itself. That's what makes it risk free.

Plasma isn't a good weapon. It's extremely counterable.

I can't think of an army that runs competitive relying on much plasma. Eldar, nids, mixed chaos, none of them even use plasma. Mixed imperium usually skips it as well. There's no reason to nerf plasma except that you feel you aren't beating space marines hard enough and need to rub it in a little extra.

stratigo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Honestly, making Reserves come randomly and only on turn 2 would be a REALLY strong move towards balancing First and Second turns.

Right now, there is absolutely no reason to start a unit on the table if it can Deepstrike. This is stupid. Strategy games should always be about making decisions.

It's the exact same thing with Plasma. Since it's basically risk-free to Overheat all the time, people just Overheat all the time.

1) You're right, but I'm not sure how to fix it. "Reserves come in randomly" doesn't really fix it, as either it is so random the choice is automatically not to deepstrike (e.g. something like a 4+ with no re-rolls or modifiers per unit) or it is "random-but-not-really" (e.g. Comes in on a 2+, Special Character X re-rolls 1s for reserve rolls)

2) It's not risk free. The problem with plasma overheat is the re-rolls from characters, not the plasma itself. That's what makes it risk free.

Plasma isn't a good weapon. It's extremely counterable.

I can't think of an army that runs competitive relying on much plasma. Eldar, nids, mixed chaos, none of them even use plasma. Mixed imperium usually skips it as well. There's no reason to nerf plasma except that you feel you aren't beating space marines hard enough and need to rub it in a little extra.

I feel this might be an oversimplification of what's happening here. Sure, competitive lists aren't crammed full of Plasma at the moment. But I believe that one of the reasons Marines and similar struggle in competitive is because most armies COULD spam Plasma.

Difficult to be sure I concede, but we do have to consider that the meta is reactive. If no one is bringing much elite infantry, of course the amount of Plasma drops.

Nids, an Army without plasma is not running plasma.
Eldar, doesnt have plasma guns and has better in Reaper Launchers.
Do Chaos lists even bring models that can have plasma?

Bad units with good guns are often still bad (tacticals/basic CSM ect).

I feel that people underestimate Guard Scions with plasma's because they are to focused on infantry squads with mortals.

 Ordana wrote:

Do Chaos lists even bring models that can have plasma?

Chaos can give a whole unit of Terminators combi-plasma, and Chosen can also spam Plasma. You tend not to see this much though, as spamming cultists and DPs is better in this meta. You sometimes get Termicide units still though.

It's interesting you bring up Dark Reapers though, as their statline is worse than a Marine. So in a way they are a bad unit with good guns.

Stux wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Sisters have access to the full range of Imperial HQs.

So? So in this frankly asinine highlander system you people I'm very glad don't work at GW because man, did I not realize how good those guys actually are until ya'll started trying to do their job, have if I want to play SoB I HAVE to take other imperial commanders? I can't play my army at all unless I bring outside help like Jacobus and SM Commanders? Do you really not see how stupid that is to be a core list building requirement?

Are you gonna carry that over into other armies? Are Imperial guard required to take a captain and a wolf priest now? Do dark angels have to take Dante and a wolf guard battle leader? Do Tyranids have to take a Coldstar and a Succubus? I wanna know how far down into this ridiculous kneejerk we have to go.

Oh, and as dumb as this whole system is, the percentage thing is actually significantly worse.

it's only stupid because SoB aren't a properly fleshed out army at this point. They've been barely supported for so long, the system shouldn't be restrained by an underdeveloped faction. We know attention is coming to then in 2019 and it would just mean giving them a couple more HQs then, were this something GW ever wanted to do.

Not saying I totally agree with the suggestion, but I found your reply a bit of an overreaction.

Surely it would be better to have this restriction only apply to those armies with a Codex who should be fully developed and those still languishing without one carry on with what they have until they do.

leopard wrote:
Random suggestions:

1. units that assault out of deep strike never count as charging - so never automatically go first, but fight in the alternating order

2. make shooting through a friendly unit impossible again - shows that pass within 1" of a friendly model not allowed - limits "castling" to a degree

3. make shooting through an enemy unit provide -1 to hit (so you can once more screen units) - defined as shots passing within 1" of another model in another unit - consider model by model, so some may be screened others not

4. ruins block line of sight through them, can see in and out, but never through

5. "tall" area terrain as #4 (e.g. woods)

6. movement penalties for terrain, not massive ones, just -1" or -2" etc, but make scatter terrain do something

7. cover for infantry units to be considered model by model - so a unit half in and half out of cover has half its models get the benefit and half not - the firing player nominates if they are aiming at those within or without cover for where hits must be allocated before they can go to the other (so a larger infantry unit can say protect a weapon team, leader etc and smaller items of cover do something - provides an alternative to a headlong charge)

8. bring back the (5th edition?) rule noting that 25% of the table should be terrain, ideally with roughly a third as LoS blocking a third providing cover and a third being flat but providing movement penalties. ideally release Codex: Battlefields with a totally revised terrain section


thinking is less in the way or arbitrary bans and restrictions (e.g. no assault on T1 etc) but to provide a mechanic that provides other options and removes the focus on the T1 strike by allowing other alternatives to be viable

I really like point 1, but points 2 3 6 7 and 8 are already in the game, just implemented in a different way.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

It also in no way looks like an army, similar to how if I ran 15 space marine commanders it wouldn’t look like an army. I’m not suggesting no one likes these armies or plays them, but most do it for a rules advantage not because fluff.

You know what also in no way looks like an army? The one-of-everything forces that some people on here think are the correct way to build your armies.

And I advocated one of everything where? So that is a straw man. I’m looking for more variety and more difficult limited spamming. In my set up you could still bring 3 flyrants, you could then bring 6-9 copies of any non troop (depending on limit of 2 or 3). It just costs a bit more to do it. It is a means of balance.

I said you advocated that where? Tighten the reading comprehension up.

There are plenty of people on here pushing for systems where everything except troops is 0-1 because according to them that's fluffy and taking two rhinos is too much spam.

When you reply to me it is safe to assume you might actually be replying to things I’m writing instead of going off and replying to other people. Highlander is crap, but so is essentially unbound.

Stux wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Do Chaos lists even bring models that can have plasma?

Chaos can give a whole unit of Terminators combi-plasma, and Chosen can also spam Plasma. You tend not to see this much though, as spamming cultists and DPs is better in this meta. You sometimes get Termicide units still though.

It's interesting you bring up Dark Reapers though, as their statline is worse than a Marine. So in a way they are a bad unit with good guns.

Yeah, always hitting on 3+ with a 3+ save for 5 points is terrible
/s

 Ordana wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Do Chaos lists even bring models that can have plasma?

Chaos can give a whole unit of Terminators combi-plasma, and Chosen can also spam Plasma. You tend not to see this much though, as spamming cultists and DPs is better in this meta. You sometimes get Termicide units still though.

It's interesting you bring up Dark Reapers though, as their statline is worse than a Marine. So in a way they are a bad unit with good guns.

Yeah, always hitting on 3+ with a 3+ save for 5 points is terrible
/s

Obviously Dark Reapers are great, but it is basically just due to their gun and that one special rule. A single Dark Reaper is 1 point more expensive than a Space Marine with a Plasma Gun, who can also move and fire without penalty, also has a 3+ save, and has superior toughness.

The difference is the Dark Reapers always hit on 3s rule, which is sometimes amazing and sometimes irrelevant, range, and the fact it's easier to spam them.

My point is that fundamentally model Vs model there isn't that much in it really, yet in the context of their respective armies in an actual game one is far superior.

I've toyed around with the idea of alternating activation. Would likely have to result in a large edition overhaul but might be interesting. Give a way to react to deepstriking units by moving targets, tactical flexibility.

 Kurgash wrote:
I've toyed around with the idea of alternating activation. Would likely have to result in a large edition overhaul but might be interesting. Give a way to react to deepstriking units by moving targets, tactical flexibility.

It's great in other games, but it's not something you can easily houserule for 40k. It changes so many things, it really would require a whole new edition. I also think GW would worry it gives up brand identity, sort of conceding that all the other wargames are doing it better. Even if that's true, admitting it is not easy for a big company!

could be worth a try to use the alternating phase activation from LotR perhaps, has the benefit of being a rule GW already use.

basically P1 moves, then P2 moves, then P1 psi, then P2 psi etc

Stux wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Do Chaos lists even bring models that can have plasma?

Chaos can give a whole unit of Terminators combi-plasma, and Chosen can also spam Plasma. You tend not to see this much though, as spamming cultists and DPs is better in this meta. You sometimes get Termicide units still though.

It's interesting you bring up Dark Reapers though, as their statline is worse than a Marine. So in a way they are a bad unit with good guns.

Yeah, always hitting on 3+ with a 3+ save for 5 points is terrible
/s

Obviously Dark Reapers are great, but it is basically just due to their gun and that one special rule. A single Dark Reaper is 1 point more expensive than a Space Marine with a Plasma Gun, who can also move and fire without penalty, also has a 3+ save, and has superior toughness.

The difference is the Dark Reapers always hit on 3s rule, which is sometimes amazing and sometimes irrelevant, range, and the fact it's easier to spam them.

My point is that fundamentally model Vs model there isn't that much in it really, yet in the context of their respective armies in an actual game one is far superior.

You're not serious are you?

The ML they have is a much superior weapon than a Plasma Gun...

leopard wrote:
could be worth a try to use the alternating phase activation from LotR perhaps, has the benefit of being a rule GW already use.

basically P1 moves, then P2 moves, then P1 psi, then P2 psi etc

Pretty much what I was thinking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Do Chaos lists even bring models that can have plasma?

Chaos can give a whole unit of Terminators combi-plasma, and Chosen can also spam Plasma. You tend not to see this much though, as spamming cultists and DPs is better in this meta. You sometimes get Termicide units still though.

It's interesting you bring up Dark Reapers though, as their statline is worse than a Marine. So in a way they are a bad unit with good guns.

Yeah, always hitting on 3+ with a 3+ save for 5 points is terrible
/s

Obviously Dark Reapers are great, but it is basically just due to their gun and that one special rule. A single Dark Reaper is 1 point more expensive than a Space Marine with a Plasma Gun, who can also move and fire without penalty, also has a 3+ save, and has superior toughness.

The difference is the Dark Reapers always hit on 3s rule, which is sometimes amazing and sometimes irrelevant, range, and the fact it's easier to spam them.

My point is that fundamentally model Vs model there isn't that much in it really, yet in the context of their respective armies in an actual game one is far superior.

You're not serious are you?

The ML they have is a much superior weapon than a Plasma Gun...

All the more evidence that a good gun makes a bad unit good.

If you took away the great guns you'd still be getting a 3+ BS3+ model for 5 points. Even with just Shuriken Catapults that'd be a great unit.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you took away the great guns you'd still be getting a 3+ BS3+ model for 5 points. Even with just Shuriken Catapults that'd be a great unit.

The fact they are 5pts without guns is totally irrelevant when you can't take them without guns. If you could give them 0pts Shurikan Catapults then that would be a valid point, but that isn't an option. You have to take in to account the whole package.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you took away the great guns you'd still be getting a 3+ BS3+ model for 5 points. Even with just Shuriken Catapults that'd be a great unit.

They are only costed that way because the autarch can take a reaper launcher too.

 Peregrine wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Realistically, addressing this would basically require a new edition.

This is the correct answer. The only solution is a new edition that makes 40k a wargame, instead of a CCG with "cards" you have to paint yourself. And I'm glad people are finally starting to agree with what I was saying from day one, that 8th edition is a dumpster fire of bad design.

8th was why many came back. Making it less streamlined will just make them drop it like a hot rock again. I think they prefer having new gamers join since all the old guard will never, ever change their tune. It'll always be a dumpster fire to them, so I'm glad GW is abandoning them.

Lemondish wrote:


8th was why many came back.

Its also why many left. This statement also conveniently ignores the large number of people who came back after the dumpter fire of 7th, but still have many, many valid issues with 8th.

Making it less streamlined will just make them drop it like a hot rock again.

Point out in Peregrine's quote where it was stated the game should be less streamlined. I'll wait.

I think they prefer having new gamers join since all the old guard will never, ever change their tune.

Of course they like having new people. They also like keeping existing customers. If by change their tune you mean asking for better balance and a game where player agency is important and that adding random rolls at every step is not the best idea? Then sure.

It'll always be a dumpster fire to them, so I'm glad GW is abandoning them.

Glad you have such a positive, inclusive attitude.

Lemondish wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Realistically, addressing this would basically require a new edition.

This is the correct answer. The only solution is a new edition that makes 40k a wargame, instead of a CCG with "cards" you have to paint yourself. And I'm glad people are finally starting to agree with what I was saying from day one, that 8th edition is a dumpster fire of bad design.

8th was why many came back. Making it less streamlined will just make them drop it like a hot rock again. I think they prefer having new gamers join since all the old guard will never, ever change their tune. It'll always be a dumpster fire to them, so I'm glad GW is abandoning them.

Its also why many left, same thing every edition change. Will be the same when they dump 8th and go to 9th.

Lemondish wrote:
Making it less streamlined will just make them drop it like a hot rock again

As was pointed out, where exactly did I say that streamlining needs to go? In fact, my ideal edition of 40k probably has more streamlining, especially compared to 8th edition's false simplification. Remember, this is an edition where they cut down the core rulebook but promptly moved most of the cut rules to individual units and then added on a whole pointless CP system, rolling dice to see how many dice you roll, etc. 8th may not be quite as much of a bloated mess as 7th, but it's still way too complicated for a game with such shallow strategy.