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.

Only thing I dislike about any Craftworld change is that a lot of them are done with Ynnari in mind. I do not want to be forced to play Ynnari, but if an army is balanced around Ynnari I fear that is a path I must eventually accept.

Well, that's inherently a problem with a lot of the stuff targeted for potential nerfs.

Talos/Grotesques aren't badly priced if you're NOT taking Prophets of Flesh. But GW clearly failed to grasp how powerful the change from a 5++ to a 4++ is (also applies to Knights' Ion Bulwark, which is literally the Warlord Trait everyone takes, because it's just flat out the best, i.e. badly internally balanced).

Shining Spears are pretty laughable at 31 points per model, if you run them as Ulthwe or whatever. It's basically a fast Primaris Marine at twice the price. But the buffs and especially the double activation isn't "priced" into it.

A House Terryn or something Castellan in an all-Knight army with, dunno, 9 CP of which half are gone before the game is not a problem. It's the combo, CPs and the House Raven strat, which in turn is probably nothing to write home about on an Armiger, but just insane on a Castellan and thus shouldn't be identical in CP for either one, is just silly.

Tide of Traitors is cute on 10 cultists, but game-deciding on 40. How they are the same CP costs is beyond me.

Etc..

Etc..

At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.

Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.

Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18

rather then getting rid of index units (and rememebr we need entires for inqusitors, sisters of silence, Ynnari etc before that happens) I'd rather once they released everything and rendered the index "obselete" they'd stop printing it and put out a "Index: X" online as a PDF of all the legacy units etc. So if say they did that in december now that Space Marines are complete (now that space Wolves are out the index is done unless we're getting codex legion of the damned) they stop selling Index 1: Space Marines, and instead put a PDF up called "Index Astartes" that contains data sheets for Legion of the damned, the various bike options etc.

 Eldarsif wrote:
At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.

Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.

Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18

It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.

Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.

Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.

Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18

It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.

paying points for chapter tactics seems good in practice but you know we'd see stupid things like "Raven Guard Chapter tactics: 5 points. Black Templar chapter tactics: 25 points"

BrianDavion wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.

Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.

Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18

It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.

paying points for chapter tactics seems good in practice but you know we'd see stupid things like "Raven Guard Chapter tactics: 5 points. Black Templar chapter tactics: 25 points"

Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.

Is that about right?

Stux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.

Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.

Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18

It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.

paying points for chapter tactics seems good in practice but you know we'd see stupid things like "Raven Guard Chapter tactics: 5 points. Black Templar chapter tactics: 25 points"

Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.

Is that about right?

dunno I've never played AoS, I'm just cynically commenting on their history with pointing in 40k, also a points cost for CT would be difficult as CTs would be in many cases a force multiplier, consider the challanges GW has with Gulliman, pointing him correctly is almost impossiable because he acts as a force multiplier so in addition to his (admittingly beefy) combat stats the guy enhances every unit around him. This IMHO is going to be one of the biggest challanges for GW going forward from 8th edition, with auras, buffs etc, HQ units aren't just the beat sticks they where in previous editions, but are now force multipliers. some of which are VERY good. How do you point a unit whose primary purpose is to make his entire army "twice as good"?

dunno I've never played AoS, I'm just cynically commenting on their history with pointing in 40k, also a points cost for CT would be difficult as CTs would be in many cases a force multiplier, consider the challanges GW has with Gulliman, pointing him correctly is almost impossiable because he acts as a force multiplier so in addition to his (admittingly beefy) combat stats the guy enhances every unit around him. This IMHO is going to be one of the biggest challanges for GW going forward from 8th edition, with auras, buffs etc, HQ units aren't just the beat sticks they where in previous editions, but are now force multipliers. some of which are VERY good. How do you point a unit whose primary purpose is to make his entire army "twice as good"?

I agree with this and why I feel like the traits in general must be revisited completely. The Alaitoc buff, for example, should be rangers(perhaps troops) only, which would make it easier to balance or give points to if that path is chosen. Much like the current Saim-hann rule is very much limited to bikes only.

I feel like indiscriminate buffs(like the Alaitoc one) tend to be too large of a force multiplier and wildcard that they become impossible to buff. If they are kept to a minimum they are much more easier to handle. Same kinda goes for Roboute. If he was just buffing select units he would be much easier to balance.

I do agree that all the traits are imbalanced across all armies; it shoehorns people to choose specific ones in a competitive setting.

I think you would see a radical shift if they made it where only the primary detachment got the benefits of a craftworld/god/whatever, or added some points or something. Really they should have made it fluffier; for example, if I want to run World Eaters, then I need a minimum of 3 Berzerker troops in this detachment, or Ravenwing needs 3 bike squads which are troops, etc. Leaving it open as it is is what breaks so many factions.

One example would be Alpha Legion; should be everything must be chaos undivided, and no use of the legion elite choices (noise, zerkers, or plagues). Then one of their benefits would be that you can infiltrate one squad for free, and the army gets -1 to hit on all Infantry, Walkers, and Demon Princes. Demon princes cannot have marks, etc. Yes, it limits options for the army as a whole, but the -1 hit benefits outweigh being able to choose certain options.

I really think they made the game too open ended, which is leading to these imbalances.

What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.

My only problem with 40K sub-faction traits is how little important they are with how you play your faction, and normally, how badly they reflect the "fluff" of that sub-faction. The Dark Angels one, for example... is so... boring and... meh.

AoS is much more imaginative with the special rules of their armies. The balance is way off as a result, but welp. Both AoS and 40k work in a casual setting. And in that context, imaginative rules are more fun.

I would love it if GW followed FFG and issued an app, and all point values were in the APP. And said app was an army builder. It would fix a lot of issues. And they could rebalance easily. These Units have changed cost, your old saved armies with the old points have been marked invalid, redo those lists and reprint them out to play he most up to date 40K.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, that's inherently a problem with a lot of the stuff targeted for potential nerfs.

Talos/Grotesques aren't badly priced if you're NOT taking Prophets of Flesh. But GW clearly failed to grasp how powerful the change from a 5++ to a 4++ is (also applies to Knights' Ion Bulwark, which is literally the Warlord Trait everyone takes, because it's just flat out the best, i.e. badly internally balanced).

Shining Spears are pretty laughable at 31 points per model, if you run them as Ulthwe or whatever. It's basically a fast Primaris Marine at twice the price. But the buffs and especially the double activation isn't "priced" into it.

A House Terryn or something Castellan in an all-Knight army with, dunno, 9 CP of which half are gone before the game is not a problem. It's the combo, CPs and the House Raven strat, which in turn is probably nothing to write home about on an Armiger, but just insane on a Castellan and thus shouldn't be identical in CP for either one, is just silly.

Tide of Traitors is cute on 10 cultists, but game-deciding on 40. How they are the same CP costs is beyond me.

Etc..

Etc..

what's sad is they have done it occasionally, for example the Deathwing trait. Costs 1 CP for a 5 man sqd, but automatically jumps to 3 CP for 6-10 (which is ridiculous when you compare to the strength of other strats). So, why couldn't Tide of Traitors be 1CP for 10 cultists, 2CP for 11-20 cultists and 3CP for 21-40?

If you are going to pay points for a trait, and I don't think thats a bad idea as it happens then it really needs to be paying a percentage of the cost of the models it would apply to, and apply a "power level" cost to the force as a whole for those just playing power points or for where power points are used in victory conditions etc (its not granular enough to do it per unit I don't think)

e.g. this trait adds 5%, that one maybe 7%.

would be a perfect way into a GW army builder, pick your trait and it can adjust the cost of whatever so a Raven Guard Interbanannnanna squad costs "x" while a plain one without a train costs "y", and a blood angels one costs "z" - the sort of thing a roster builder can easily manage and the codex can just list as text next to the chapter traits (other factions also available)

leopard wrote:
If you are going to pay points for a trait, and I don't think thats a bad idea as it happens then it really needs to be paying a percentage of the cost of the models it would apply to, and apply a "power level" cost to the force as a whole for those just playing power points or for where power points are used in victory conditions etc (its not granular enough to do it per unit I don't think)

e.g. this trait adds 5%, that one maybe 7%.

would be a perfect way into a GW army builder, pick your trait and it can adjust the cost of whatever so a Raven Guard Interbanannnanna squad costs "x" while a plain one without a train costs "y", and a blood angels one costs "z" - the sort of thing a roster builder can easily manage and the codex can just list as text next to the chapter traits (other factions also available)

You could also just have the traits cost points depending on game size. More traits, more costs - boom, a reason to run mono armies.

leopard wrote:
If you are going to pay points for a trait, and I don't think thats a bad idea as it happens then it really needs to be paying a percentage of the cost of the models it would apply to, and apply a "power level" cost to the force as a whole for those just playing power points or for where power points are used in victory conditions etc (its not granular enough to do it per unit I don't think)

e.g. this trait adds 5%, that one maybe 7%.

would be a perfect way into a GW army builder, pick your trait and it can adjust the cost of whatever so a Raven Guard Interbanannnanna squad costs "x" while a plain one without a train costs "y", and a blood angels one costs "z" - the sort of thing a roster builder can easily manage and the codex can just list as text next to the chapter traits (other factions also available)

They would never do something percentage related because it leads to fractions and it stops list building being simple addition when it comes to points. I could see them potentially having a small table for a cost per trait per unit type, i.e. this trait costs 5pts per fast attack unit but 8 points per heavy support units. Though I'm sure they'd want to go for a simpler solution if they did introduce something like that. They want the game to be accessible and while making list building more complex may solve problems it adds barriers to entry that will turn some players away. GW wants to minimise barriers to entry because more barriers mean less sales.

 Jidmah wrote:

The UI is quite terrible and would make some of my UX colleagues cry if I showed it to them. (UX experts are people who get paid to make user interfaces easier to use)
You get used to it though, and even the terrible UI is better than pen&paper.
The most important feature not the UI, but the constantly updated data available through auto-update. That alone is what sets Battlescribe apart from all competition.

This is all very true. Particularly the bit about the UI bringing me to tears.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.

Yeah! And we can give a name to those restricted choices. Perhaps something like... Formations! That'll work. You can take a restricted list of models in exchange for rule bonuses. What could go wrong!

Generally speaking, GW has the right idea; they just have to figure out how to sort through their baggage. GW has been making "theme forces" for years by taking models, giving them a different paint scheme and calling them a new faction. The more recent versions of this like DW and Genestealers and the separated out Chaos Legions have pretty well thought out designs top to bottom built on the bedrock of pretty limited model selection.

Where they seem to be struggling most is applying this design to hugely bloated legacy factions. What would really work, IMO is using the traits to give incentives to take different kinds of units. Orks seem like the obvious example to me, but if you had one Klan whose buff only applied to vehicles and another that only appllied to Meks, etc so that different subdivisions would enable them to apply buffs to pieces of these armies as needed.

Sure, the obvious complain would be that players would feel like they could ONLY run Centurions in Crimson Fists or that Bikers only work in White Scars or something, but with the ability to mix detachments I think it would lead to some pretty exciting list directions and gameplay. I feel like this works pretty well for most of the game, with the biggest hurdle being the way they've isolated Space Marine players under the idea that they're whole army has one gimmick. The rest of the game seems a little happier to accept a bit more diversity in their unit roles.

Stux wrote:
Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.

Is that about right?

Not quite...

Battalions were originally AoS's implementation of the 40k formation mechanic but unlike 40k, once AoS finally got a points system the battalions got a points cost.

They have changed gradually over time though: in the Sylvaneth Battletome there were two kinds: formations of a few specific units with a couple of special rules attached, and ones that consisted of one of those small formations plus 0-infinity other sylvaneth units that slightly modified the benefit of the tiny formation and conferred other buffs or special rules, the latter were basically chapter tactic equivalents.

Currently, they're moving more towards 40ks implementation, free chapter tactic-like abilities that confer certain bonuses but require you to take certain artefacts or command traits, with battalions back to being the small formations.

Generally speaking battalions are good force multipliers even now, cheap enough that their equal points in units arent usually better, but expensive enough that you aught to spend time thinking about how to maximize their benefit.

Their big problem is that they're almost always undercosted when the book first drops and usually don't get bumped until the General's Handbook comes out.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

Stux wrote:
Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.

Is that about right?

Not quite...

Battalions were originally AoS's implementation of the 40k formation mechanic but unlike 40k, once AoS finally got a points system the battalions got a points cost.

They have changed gradually over time though: in the Sylvaneth Battletome there were two kinds: formations of a few specific units with a couple of special rules attached, and ones that consisted of one of those small formations plus 0-infinity other sylvaneth units that slightly modified the benefit of the tiny formation and conferred other buffs or special rules, the latter were basically chapter tactic equivalents.

Currently, they're moving more towards 40ks implementation, free chapter tactic-like abilities that confer certain bonuses but require you to take certain artefacts or chapter tactics, with battalions back to being the small formations.

Generally speaking battalions are good force multipliers even now, cheap enough that their equal points in units arent usually better, but expensive enough that you aught to spend time thinking about how to maximize their benefit.

Their big problem is that they're almost always undercosted when the book first drops and usually don't get bumped until the General's Handbook comes out.

Cool, so basically what I said without my pessimism

 deviantduck wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.

Yeah! And we can give a name to those restricted choices. Perhaps something like... Formations! That'll work. You can take a restricted list of models in exchange for rule bonuses. What could go wrong!

This made me smile.
But seriously, Formations could have worked if the bonuses were not so blatantly OP. 8E would actually be the BEST edition for formations as the only bonuses you'd need to give is Obsec on certain non-Troops and some additional CPs
A Deathwing Formation, for example, could basically be a Battalion that treats DW Termies as Troops, or rather makes them the required units, give them ObSec and has 4-5 CPs
Yes, you can use a Vangaurd detachment to take the same units, but without ObSec and more than 1 measly CP, why would you?

TL;DR: Formations could work in 8E if the extra bonuses were just CPs & Obsec

-

Stux wrote:
Cool, so basically what I said without my pessimism

More or less, except they never really go down in points; GW seems to want people to take one in mid-sized games on average.

My point is, they did try to make chapter tactics a batallion thing you paid points for and didn't really like the result. New armies in AoS get those for free now, like armies in 40k always did.

 Galef wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.

Yeah! And we can give a name to those restricted choices. Perhaps something like... Formations! That'll work. You can take a restricted list of models in exchange for rule bonuses. What could go wrong!

This made me smile.
But seriously, Formations could have worked if the bonuses were not so blatantly OP. 8E would actually be the BEST edition for formations as the only bonuses you'd need to give is Obsec on certain non-Troops and some additional CPs
A Deathwing Formation, for example, could basically be a Battalion that treats DW Termies as Troops, or rather makes them the required units, give them ObSec and has 4-5 CPs
Yes, you can use a Vangaurd detachment to take the same units, but without ObSec and more than 1 measly CP, why would you?

TL;DR: Formations could work in 8E if the extra bonuses were just CPs & Obsec

-

I agree. It's just that the word now tastes bitter. The problem was there were 50 formations that had taxes and were balanced. But the 5 formations everyone took broke the game. FoC is now essentially formations with CP bonuses. But, Faction specific formations could be fun if implemented correctly. I shan't hold my breath.

 LunarSol wrote:

Sure, the obvious complain would be that players would feel like they could ONLY run Centurions in Crimson Fists or that Bikers only work in White Scars or something, but with the ability to mix detachments I think it would lead to some pretty exciting list directions and gameplay. I feel like this works pretty well for most of the game, with the biggest hurdle being the way they've isolated Space Marine players under the idea that they're whole army has one gimmick. The rest of the game seems a little happier to accept a bit more diversity in their unit roles.

How would mixing detachments give you sensible bikers that are NOT white scars? Or howabout white scar TACTICALS that are you know the core of white scars?

For that matter where are blood angel devastators? They have exact same amount of those as dark angels have. But if you look at rules you would think there are none...

Problem is these silly chapter traits etc that by their very nature drives toward unfluffy armies. Then add to that typical GW stupidity making them all free which ensures balance will never work...

End result is standard GW type of mess where balance just goes to hell.

Ideally, you'd build one large detatchment which was your army, or maybe 2. Then you'd pick one CT for it. Maybe add a second force of another Chapter or army, if you wanted.

Ideally, an army with Bikers and Devs would beat an all-BIkes army or an all-Devs army. Or, at least, be equally viable.

If those were true, you'd see BA Devs and White Scar Tacs - just in formations with slightly more ASM/Bikes (respectively) than normal.

Unfortunately, instead of incentivising one-detatchement-with-lots-of-things, or even sharing a Trait across detatchements, the rules were written to incentivise as many detatchments as possible.

If there were a benefit to have 1 Battalion instead of a Brigade plus a Vanguard/Outrider/whatever, you'd see more White Scar troops (tacs, or maybe just Scouts) along with those White Scar bikes. Instead, the army gets more CP for bringing an Outrider White Scar detatchment for bikes, so their Tacs (and the rest of the Battalion) are UM or Sallies or whatever.

This is a core principle for why the game would be better if detatchments *cost* CP - even Battallions/Brigades. It's a soft nerf to Soup, as each additional faction requires addtional CP be payed - instead of getting more CP for further splitting up your forces.

I like my Marines to have ASM, Devs, and Tacs in their army. I want them all to be the same chapter. But the way the rules are written, there's too much incentive to use multiple detatchments and different CTs.

The chapter tactics would be better as an orders system that imperial guard have.

Captains, Leiutenants, etc can issue orders, which is bestowing the chapter tactic bonus to a unit, for the phase/player turn/game turn (depending).

It would also help marines be true generalists, as being a generalist should be defined by tactical flexibility, as you'd be able to select the appropriate tactic for the given turn. Maybe you're shooting at castled reapers and want imperial fists tactics, maybe you're advancing with bikes and want them to have white scars tactics, maybe you want to fall back and shoot, ultramarines tactics, etc.

Also, ATSKNF should be flat morale immunity. It's insane to me that Marines are barely more disciplined than imperial guard.

I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.

Or you know, just get rid of the whole thing. It is just needless rule clutter. If certain units work best with certain special rules, then just give those units those rules as a default!