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.

5th-style army building doesn't scale. If anything, 2nd-style army-building with percentages.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
5th-style army building doesn't scale. If anything, 2nd-style army-building with percentages.

Sure, percentages work too.

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think the current rule set and army build rules allow I the freedom to build armies in so many ways. U can’t have the freedom needed to create fluff accurate and fun lists without people abusing that freedom.

Sure you can. People made plenty of fluff-accurate and fun lists in 5th edition, when the rules were far more restrictive. In fact, spam lists that are restricted by the rule of three tend to be less fluffy. A "real" 40k army would have a pretty diverse mix of units, even if the focus is on a particular thing. For example, an IG armored unit might have a tank commander and three LRBTs (~750-1000 points) but also have supporting infantry, Hellhounds, etc, to make up the rest of the points. An army that is just 1750 points worth of tank commanders and a cheap CP battery is much less fluffy.

We balance 5e game and we add flavour to it too, it doesn’t feel homogenised or lacking tactical depth to me but that’s probably more how we play it than the games problem.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning 5e games as a reply to 8th being over-homogenized and shallow, but if you're house ruling 8th to the point that it is no longer over-homogenized and shallow you've created an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How does limiting me to 3 single Taratula Sentry Guns make me take Heavy Bolter Devastators? It doesn't. Now I just bunch up those 6 in squads of two or three.

It doesn't force you to take that one particular unit, but that's not the point. It makes you take something else, whatever that other thing might be. And in the case of MSU spam where you could take the same models in a different configuration it at least forces you to group them up into larger units and lose the benefits of MSU.

Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

My stance is , the rule of 3 has no effect on me because we don’t use and don’t need to.

I don’t think it’ll stop terrible power lists just alter them slightly, tournament play will still be an unholy mess that has no relation to the 40k universe at all.

"FoC" limitations also only work in the context of the armies available. For example Chaos Marines last edition didn't truly gain a pretense of viability until Traitor's Hate/Legions gave alternate detachments letting them circumvent their own FOC.

With Chaos Marines:
-All their long-range shooting was Heavy Support.
-All their fast units were Fast Attack (barring Heldrakes).
-All their infantry and elites were "short-range infantry-speed" units.

By contrast, Loyalists could:
-Take Bike Troops and Razorbacks, letting their Troops support either fast or ranged builds.
-Take Vanguard/Sternguard/Bike Command/Dreads Squads in Elites.
-Speeders and Attack Bikes in Fast Attack (or more Razorbacks if you were feeling cheeky).
-Dreads in Elites if doing an Iron Hands build.

Either way, they had a far easier time diffusing their threats across the entire FOC rather than being siloed.

And this is not even discussing Scatbike Troops.

The point is, limiting stuff to a 5th-style FOC only works if the armies can be reliably designed around it, and many...can't.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...The point is, limiting stuff to a 5th-style FOC only works if the armies can be reliably designed around it, and many...can't.

They could. Many of them were before GW started throwing "(unit X) in Troops!" around like candy.

Most of these "fast armies with bikes in Troops!" are just as fluffy running infantry in transports for their actual Troops and leaving the bikes in Fast Attack. The Farsight Enclaves haven't forgotten how infantry works to run all-battlesuit lists, no matter what people building armies off the 7e supplement want you to think.

Andykp wrote:

Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

My stance is , the rule of 3 has no effect on me because we don’t use and don’t need to.

I don’t think it’ll stop terrible power lists just alter them slightly, tournament play will still be an unholy mess that has no relation to the 40k universe at all.

Except it is the rules which allow players to make "stupid power lists." Players will always try their hardest to break the game, therefore it is GW's responsibility to write the rules to account for that.

It's almost like the rule of three and the current detachment set up is a good compromise between the limitations of 5th and the flexibility of 7th. Go figure.

Things are still definitely not perfect,but but I think if they do something to de-incentivise allies down from a "the only way to be competitive" option and roll through a few layers of unit balances via CA and FAQs to bring the earlier codexes to a modern power level, things will be pretty good.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...The point is, limiting stuff to a 5th-style FOC only works if the armies can be reliably designed around it, and many...can't.

They could. Many of them were before GW started throwing "(unit X) in Troops!" around like candy.

Most of these "fast armies with bikes in Troops!" are just as fluffy running infantry in transports for their actual Troops and leaving the bikes in Fast Attack. The Farsight Enclaves haven't forgotten how infantry works to run all-battlesuit lists, no matter what people building armies off the 7e supplement want you to think.

"Just as fluffy"
So why is one set of fluffy more equal than the other? Just because you hate seeing Bikers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So you want us to build less effective armies for our area because 4 Predators is just too much for you.

Maybe you should learn to play the game properly?

 SHUPPET wrote:
people literally saying they take 1000 pts armies to 2000 pt games because their entire collection was two models repeated, and wondering why 8th feels so difficult

It really is a sad state of affairs.
"WAAAA MY 1000PTS OF PREDATORS CAN'T WIN AGAINST 2000PTS. GW SUCKS WAAAA!!!"

 Blndmage wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the effects of this Rules at 1,000 and lower? In these games it's the Rules of 2.

I see no issue with it.
1000pts is the only real viable game size for 40k anyway with 8th being sooooo slow.

I started early 4th, so I know how "to play properly" in your eyes.

You're also purposely missing the point again.

You were making a point?...must of been subtle

Blastaar wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

My stance is , the rule of 3 has no effect on me because we don’t use and don’t need to.

I don’t think it’ll stop terrible power lists just alter them slightly, tournament play will still be an unholy mess that has no relation to the 40k universe at all.

Except it is the rules which allow players to make "stupid power lists." Players will always try their hardest to break the game, therefore it is GW's responsibility to write the rules to account for that.

I play in a group with no one who wants to break the game. It’s a fallacy that players will always try to break the game. SOME players will. Should we change the rules and handicap all of those who don’t or just not tolerate the few that are causing the problems. At the minute the competing scene in 40k celebrate the idiots that are breaking the game. GW is just trying to reign them in. As I said, it’s not an issue for my group and we don’t use it. Most faqs don’t change how we play the GAME. We play for fun, not trying to prove how good we are with our toy soldiers. Won’t tolerate the d@cks and they might change their behaviour.

The reign in part doesn't really work, if for the top army it means taking one less unit or taking other good units they have, while the weaker armies get hit in the nuts, and people whose whole codex was designed around stuff like deep strike wonder if they were duped in to buying a product that doesn't work.

We have a guy at our store that had a BA army, that went from being a thing, to him not being able to field 500pts of his stuff, and his army was build around a GW article list taken twice. And I don't think you can get any more fluffy then a list made, by the dudes that make the game.

Karol wrote:I don't think that it is true for all armies. From what others have told me on this forum, there is nothing a GK army can build that can rival an imperial soup list or an Inari list.

Youve completely missed the point. GK are hampered by a bunch of uncompetitive units, not by needing to build contrary to the fluff. Even if you're taking the strongest GK detachment you can, chances are its perfectly fluffy.

The Rule of Three is not about fluffy list building. It is about preventing unfun and uninteresting list from Competitive Events. That's why it is an Organized Event Rule for Match Play and not a Matched Play rule.

The idea is that they don't want anyone to spend lots of time and money traveling to an event just to encounter the latest cheesy spam list. Doesn't matter if its Flyrant Spam, Hellhound Spam, or PBC Spam. Any of those will leave a bad taste in the mouth when you find yourself "forced" to play the list or accept a 0 on a tournament score.

Conversely, in other Matched Play environments, such as your basement or FLGS, you can very easily just say "no thank you" when your opponent rocks up with 7 Flyrants and you aren't in the mood for that sort of game.

This in no way means this rule is a panacea to GW successfully balancing the rules and points. However, that is impossible to do to a certain extent without serious limitations to list building. There in no point level for a unit, such as a Flyrant, that will make 1 or 2 acceptable while 7 to 9 unacceptable. Many models just get better when you take more. I'm sure you've heard the maxim that one is OK, two is good, and three is better?

 alextroy wrote:
The Rule of Three is not about fluffy list building. It is about preventing unfun and uninteresting list from Competitive Events. That's why it is an Organized Event Rule for Match Play and not a Matched Play rule.

The idea is that they don't want anyone to spend lots of time and money traveling to an event just to encounter the latest cheesy spam list. Doesn't matter if its Flyrant Spam, Hellhound Spam, or PBC Spam. Any of those will leave a bad taste in the mouth when you find yourself "forced" to play the list or accept a 0 on a tournament score.

Conversely, in other Matched Play environments, such as your basement or FLGS, you can very easily just say "no thank you" when your opponent rocks up with 7 Flyrants and you aren't in the mood for that sort of game.

This in no way means this rule is a panacea to GW successfully balancing the rules and points. However, that is impossible to do to a certain extent without serious limitations to list building. There in no point level for a unit, such as a Flyrant, that will make 1 or 2 acceptable while 7 to 9 unacceptable. Many models just get better when you take more. I'm sure you've heard the maxim that one is OK, two is good, and three is better?

Also converse units do exsist, usually ones that depend upon strategums or relics but yes at a certain point some units reach a break point where they're going to be over powered.

Not sure that Hellhound spam is gone, considering you can still field 18 of them.

 alextroy wrote:

This in no way means this rule is a panacea to GW successfully balancing the rules and points. However, that is impossible to do to a certain extent without serious limitations to list building. There in no point level for a unit, such as a Flyrant, that will make 1 or 2 acceptable while 7 to 9 unacceptable. Many models just get better when you take more. I'm sure you've heard the maxim that one is OK, two is good, and three is better?

This is the point that people who say ‘if GW would just do their job and balance every point cost properly you wouldn’t need restrictions’ fail to understand.

Another, somewhat older example. 30 totally Fearless Conscripts are not a problem. 200 of them are. So do you make them 3pts each assuming they won’t be spammed, or 6pts each assuming they will be? The best answer is to have a table of escalating costs so the first 60 cost 3pts each, the next 30 4pts, the next 30 5pts etc, but that’s counter to GW’s new direction of a simplified 40k. So limiting units is the next best thing.

Andykp wrote:
Apologies. That was supposed to be the, typo’d to 5e. Don’t know why. When I heard how army design was to work in 8th I was pleased. Mono faction stuff is too restrictive but the soups can be abused. The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

Ah yes good old victim building. Shift the blame from the ones designing rules and blame the players instead. Good old community. Never seizes to amaze me how people still religiously defend GW rules writers.

i guess you meant "victim blaming"? Lol at the complex here, you're not a victim of gak.

kombatwombat wrote:


This is the point that people who say ‘if GW would just do their job and balance every point cost properly you wouldn’t need restrictions’ fail to understand.

Another, somewhat older example. 30 totally Fearless Conscripts are not a problem. 200 of them are. So do you make them 3pts each assuming they won’t be spammed, or 6pts each assuming they will be? The best answer is to have a table of escalating costs so the first 60 cost 3pts each, the next 30 4pts, the next 30 5pts etc, but that’s counter to GW’s new direction of a simplified 40k. So limiting units is the next best thing.

I don't see where the problem is.Why does the GW have a fixed cost for a unit and then have a progressive up or down cost depending on how spamy a unit is. So lets say 3 knights in a knight army would cost 3x times the cost of a single knight, but 120 conscripts would cost twice or even more then 4 units of 30 conscripts. If a unit would still be a problem, because of soup lists, they could make it so that, if your taking an outside of your warlord detachment unit then even the first unit you take has the rised points cost. Soup rules would still be there, people would be able to mix and match the way they do now, but it would have a cost. Take could be flexible with points cost of elite vs horde, and play around with mono armies to make them working too. So lets say a tyranid or an orc army would have a different point scaling then an IG.

Later they could add multi faction units and multi faction characters, to give people stuff like human auxilary units for tau or orc merc for imperial guard armies.

Karol wrote:
[
I don't see where the problem is.Why does the GW have a fixed cost for a unit and then have a progressive up or down cost depending on how spamy a unit is. So lets say 3 knights in a knight army would cost 3x times the cost of a single knight, but 120 conscripts would cost twice or even more then 4 units of 30 conscripts. If a unit would still be a problem, because of soup lists, they could make it so that, if your taking an outside of your warlord detachment unit then even the first unit you take has the rised points cost. Soup rules would still be there, people would be able to mix and match the way they do now, but it would have a cost. Take could be flexible with points cost of elite vs horde, and play around with mono armies to make them working too. So lets say a tyranid or an orc army would have a different point scaling then an IG.

Later they could add multi faction units and multi faction characters, to give people stuff like human auxilary units for tau or orc merc for imperial guard armies.

I’m not sure GW has the manpower to balance 4 or 5 points values for every single unit, given the difficulties in balancing a single cost for each unit.

My point also wasn’t referring to Soup armies or Elites vs Hordes or anything. It was simply to point out that some units get more valuable the more you take. I think you’re new to 8th so you might not have been around for the early part of the Edition where Guard could take 200 Conscripts for 600pts plus a hundred points’ worth of Commissars and simply flood the entire board with 50-model units that could only lose 1 model per turn to Morale. It was such a huge problem that GW nerfed the Conscript/Commissar combo three(!) times in about a month.

Andykp wrote:
I play in a group with no one who wants to break the game. It’s a fallacy that players will always try to break the game. SOME players will. Should we change the rules and handicap all of those who don’t or just not tolerate the few that are causing the problems. At the minute the competing scene in 40k celebrate the idiots that are breaking the game. GW is just trying to reign them in. As I said, it’s not an issue for my group and we don’t use it. Most faqs don’t change how we play the GAME. We play for fun, not trying to prove how good we are with our toy soldiers. Won’t tolerate the d@cks and they might change their behaviour.

Ah yes, the classic "UR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY STOP DOING IT " argument. Too bad rule #1 doesn't seem to apply to calling competitive players "idiots" and "dicks" and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

No, the problem is 100% the rules. In a game with well-designed and balanced rules making game-wrecking power lists is not possible. Don't blame the players for GW's utter incompetence.

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I play in a group with no one who wants to break the game. It’s a fallacy that players will always try to break the game. SOME players will. Should we change the rules and handicap all of those who don’t or just not tolerate the few that are causing the problems. At the minute the competing scene in 40k celebrate the idiots that are breaking the game. GW is just trying to reign them in. As I said, it’s not an issue for my group and we don’t use it. Most faqs don’t change how we play the GAME. We play for fun, not trying to prove how good we are with our toy soldiers. Won’t tolerate the d@cks and they might change their behaviour.

Ah yes, the classic "UR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY STOP DOING IT " argument. Too bad rule #1 doesn't seem to apply to calling competitive players "idiots" and "dicks" and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

No, the problem is 100% the rules. In a game with well-designed and balanced rules making game-wrecking power lists is not possible. Don't blame the players for GW's utter incompetence.

Games workshop is trying to make a game that is good for everyone who plays it not just u. If they had really restrictive army selection rules like in 5th then it wouldn’t be as good a game for me. I really like how they have opened out things in 8th. It’s one of the best features. To change that would ruin the game for me. No one is obliged to take 10 of the best units and no one is obliged to play anyone who does.

I’m not saying you’re having fun the wrong way, I’m saying you are not having fun at all. I am. I’m enjoying a loose rule set with flexibility and plenty of options. U are demanding GW make changed that would make it less fun for me and lots of other people who enjoy 8th to make you happy. As I said the game is balanced, I know this because I play it and we have no balance issues because our group has internal balance. We are all like minded folks who play for the same reason. Fun. The rules work fine. They are abusable. It’s like tax avoidance, it’s legal buts it doesn’t make it right. Google and amazon are still d@cks for doing it.

Andykp wrote:
Games workshop is trying to make a game that is good for everyone who plays it not just u.

Making a well-designed and well-balanced game benefits everyone.

If they had really restrictive army selection rules like in 5th then it wouldn’t be as good a game for me.

Why not? It forced you to take fluffy armies instead of spamming the most efficient thing and/or making absurd soup lists. And it coincidentally made it easier to balance the game, making it more likely that a fluff player would have a fun game against a random opponent instead of requiring unwritten "you can't spam that too much" rules and shunning anyone who has fun in a way that you don't approve of.

And of course even in 5th edition if you had a really cool army idea that didn't fit the FOC you could always ask your opponent to allow it. And if it was a genuinely interesting and fluff-driven list most people would probably allow it outside of a tournament. The problem is that most people who talk about their "fluff" lists that they need to remove the FOC to accommodate don't actually have a very compelling fluff idea and nobody really wants to see it. The only way to get to play their "fluff" armies is to change the army construction rules to "take whatever you want" and be able to fall back on "THIS IS A 100% LEGAL LIST YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT IT" when people point out that no, it isn't a very fluffy or interesting idea.

I’m not saying you’re having fun the wrong way, I’m saying you are not having fun at all.

That's a rather arrogant thing to say, accusing people of lying about having fun. What makes you think you know better than everyone else about what they enjoy?

As I said the game is balanced

No it isn't. In fact you admit that it isn't every time you mention having to refuse to play against someone who spams too much overpowered stuff or complain about tournament players making optimized tournament lists. You can't have it both ways, if those things are happening then it's because the game isn't balanced.

I know this because I play it and we have no balance issues because our group has internal balance.

"We voluntarily agree not to exploit any of the unbalanced things" and "the game is balanced" are not at all the same thing.

It’s like tax avoidance, it’s legal buts it doesn’t make it right. Google and amazon are still d@cks for doing it.

Nice moral high ground there. I could say the same thing about you, playing competitive and optimized lists is the right way to play the game and your "fluff" games are abuse of the rules. It's legal to play with your "fluff" lists but that doesn't make it right.

Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.

ValentineGames wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.

Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.

ValentineGames wrote:
While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.

So, we're in agreement. Players who bring weak lists should stop expecting everyone else to match their level, stop insulting anyone who brings a stronger list, and improve their lists (and skill) to the point that they can win against stronger players/lists?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.

Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.

Then you've missed the point.

ValentineGames wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The problem isn’t the rules. It’s the players making stupid power lists.

While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.

Why would someone intentionally take crap units? The point of a game is to win.

Then you've missed the point.

No, I really haven't. If I play a game of Tennis, do I deliberately use a racket with no strings because using strings is for tryhards who want to win?

If I play a game of Chess, do I just move my king out into the open because using your queen is for tryhards.

kombatwombat wrote:


I’m not sure GW has the manpower to balance 4 or 5 points values for every single unit, given the difficulties in balancing a single cost for each unit.

My point also wasn’t referring to Soup armies or Elites vs Hordes or anything. It was simply to point out that some units get more valuable the more you take. I think you’re new to 8th so you might not have been around for the early part of the Edition where Guard could take 200 Conscripts for 600pts plus a hundred points’ worth of Commissars and simply flood the entire board with 50-model units that could only lose 1 model per turn to Morale. It was such a huge problem that GW nerfed the Conscript/Commissar combo three(!) times in about a month.

But they do have people that get salaries for writing rules right? If they can't then either hire new ones, or hire more people. People work for 8 hours a day, and have time to work at home too, if what they come up is bad, you let them go and hire people who will either work more and/or for cheaper.
I don't get the problem is other then time.
Unit costs X points. If you take Y of it, it costs Z more or less or same, depending what the vision for an army is. So something like a deathwing army would have cheaper terminators, while someone trying to squeez in a 7th hive tyrant would be paying 200% or more for it. Then they could have big faction or multi faction lists, have special rules. So some sort of DW/RW army would be easier on points, then someone puting 5 custodes cpts in an IG list.
And the best way to do it, is first build armies the design team without looking at points, and then when the core and mixed lists are done, assign points to them, so that they cost the same. Then check how the options work and use the points modification method, that people can play more wild stuff.

A team of 20-30 people should be able to do the rules in a two-three months, and most of those would be freelance testers.

When I look at w40k armies, outside of eldar it seems as if GW didn't really knew what they want people to play and how the armies are suppose to look like. OR they want people to just buy all models for all faction times 4, and then build something out of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
While the rules aren't perfect THIS is certainly the main issue.
Even worse when they start demanding players match their level or openly degrade anyone who doesn't.

So, we're in agreement. Players who bring weak lists should stop expecting everyone else to match their level, stop insulting anyone who brings a stronger list, and improve their lists (and skill) to the point that they can win against stronger players/lists?

I agree with this that expecting to have fun with bad lists should not be done. But I think the majority of the responsibility on making the list good should not be put on the players, but GW should make it that their products can be assembled in a such a way that a player who buys it can make a valid army.

If you consider the only point of 40k to be "get dat W" then wouldn't you enjoy the challenge that constantly changing balance rules provides? Doesn't that allow you to prove your towering intellectual superiority over the subhuman plebian scrubs across the table from you in a variety of different ways, thus enhancing the natural thrill of the winning experience?

Surely winning with the very same list over and over would get hollow.