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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A thought just struck me regarding the Imperium's poor faction to faction balance: isn't that the point of what Guilliman did following the Heresy. I mean, if we're speaking from a narrative standpoint, the fact that monofaction armies in the Imperium are so terrible actually lends well to the flavor of the game since they're supposed to be horribly lopsided to prevent another Horus Heresy situation.

That said, I wish we could have this AND good game balance so that you aren't hosed for latching onto a single faction over others, but if GW was trying to make narrative statements using rules for the Imperium they seem to have nailed it.

Yes from a fluff pov the imperiums various fighting forces are in fact supposed to have weaknesses that only other subfactions have the strengths - although this has been underminned by constant marine additions and lack of interest in non marine factions.

not sure it works trying to have that aspect in game.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A thought just struck me regarding the Imperium's poor faction to faction balance: isn't that the point of what Guilliman did following the Heresy. I mean, if we're speaking from a narrative standpoint, the fact that monofaction armies in the Imperium are so terrible actually lends well to the flavor of the game since they're supposed to be horribly lopsided to prevent another Horus Heresy situation.

That said, I wish we could have this AND good game balance so that you aren't hosed for latching onto a single faction over others, but if GW was trying to make narrative statements using rules for the Imperium they seem to have nailed it.

Yes from a fluff pov the imperiums various fighting forces are in fact supposed to have weaknesses that only other subfactions have the strengths - although this has been underminned by constant marine additions and lack of interest in non marine factions.

not sure it works trying to have that aspect in game.

It works if you intend Imperium flavored armies to be a mixed bag, but doesn't work if you sell them as monofactions first, and a mixed bag second (as GW currently does).

That said, Imperium allies show that the Imperium really is the strongest when banded together. I mean just look at those Nova placements.

 Jidmah wrote:


Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

But it is not. For example Black Templars allied with Sisters is not even remotely superior to mono Guard or mono Dark Eldar.

I agree with some of what Englishman is saying but if you follow his argument to the conclusion you end up with a situation where the question becomes, why balance any armies at all because if you are not playing the most powerful one you are not taking a competitive choice.

Orks are underpowered, that's your fault for not playing eldar. We end up with the solution being "just play ynarri soup?"

I'm not sure that's a healthy point for the game. Even if it is a logically defensible situation I don't think the solution for balance issues should just be "play the new hotness." It's just not fun to see entire swaths of your army competitive unusable and hopefully most of us are in this hobby to have fun.

In addition I think some of the "balance mono factions" comes from people actually wanting to be able to use the models they have collected and painstakingly assembled/painted over the years. A type of gameplay that is obviously not beneficial to GWs bottom line.

GW doesn't care that I have 10k of black templars that I've collected/painted over the last 20 years. In fact, they hate it. They already have my money, they need me to go out and purchase new models in order to satisfy the investors and bean counters. Anecdotally I have three shelves where I keep my army. On the top shelf are the units I'll use (which, unsurprisingly are all new outside of the neophytes[they are not scouts!!!]) the second shelf are units I may use (devs, razors from earlier in the edition, assassins from earlier, stormtalon/raven/hawk) and the bottom shelf is full of everything else.

I think I have at least one of all GW produced marine models/units (outside of the characters). GW already has my money and they need me to go out and buy more. Creating new models is expensive for them, at least more expensive than selling stuff they already have (or at least already have the molds for).

No wonder the new armigers are better than my dreads/preds. Custode bikes are so good. The primaris were a bolt on to an existing already established army and I was going to buy some regardless of the rules (although it sucks that they melt as soon as they see a dark eldar force across the table). Even then they are one of the few marine models that saw a downward points adjustment in the FAQ/CA cycle even though the rest of the dex was in desperate need of help as well.

Either way. I think GW realizes they don't benefit from a balanced game and I think if we're honest with ourselves we don't want a perfectly balanced game. Collecting/hobying/theorizing are all important parts of this game and all of those go stale when the meta is "solved." The only way to keep the meta from being solved is to keep shaking things up. It would be nice if each faction had enough internal diversity and balance that meta shake ups would just require dipping into my faction for tools/tricks to at least compete (cough, eldar, cough) but GW has shown they either don't have the skill or desire to make that happen so we end up with the current situation where we are chasing the meta across codexes.

 Jidmah wrote:


Tell me, how does one fix the internal balance of 10 imperial codices in a way that not one of them has something worse than any of the others?

Because as soon as someone has something even slightly better than another, you can bet your hat it will be allied in.

But same happens with mono armies too. If one heavy support choice is superior to others, then that is exclusively taken. But as long as these power differences are small enough, it really doesn't matter in most games (they are not now.) Sure in the top end tournament scene it might matter if one choice was 2% more effective than another, but in more casual games most people play it really makes no noticeable difference (now, if it is 20% more effective, then that's a problem.)

To some extent, yes, a perfectly balanced game isn't beneficial to GW's bottom line, and we're likely to live with a "perfectly imbalanced" game where the balance is constantly being adjusted, but even with that, tighter balance among the stuff that isn't the new hotness of the week would be nice.

Personally think it would be better for the game if the "better" a unit is at something the more specialised it becomes as a result, doesn't stop you taking strong units just leads to either a one trick pony list that struggles or a selection of units to cover each others weaknesses

Nope - I want a balanced game. Though I think you are correct. GW doesn't want a balanced game.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

Only because the internal balance of those codices is garbage. If they weren't, Guard wouldn't be the crutch they are for Imperial armies.

Tell me, how does one fix the internal balance of 10 imperial codices in a way that not one of them has something worse than any of the others?

Because as soon as someone has something even slightly better than another, you can bet your hat it will be allied in.

The same way if no Imperial armies but Space Marines existed and you needed to balance them vs Chaos and Xenos.

This is the laziness argument again. You can't perfectly balance, so why try? Just toss mechanics out the window without a single thought. Hey, psyker powers aren't balanced, but we aren't just tossing them out either and blaming Psykers entirely for things like Invisibility.

Oh wait people did and now the Psyker phase and most Psykera in general are garbage.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nope - I want a balanced game. Though I think you are correct. GW doesn't want a balanced game.

There is definitely an argument to be made for a constantly shifting meta (it keeps MtG playable after all these years for example), but the core mechanics of the game and how everything interacts needs to be balanced enough that even if everyone has a tactical nuke button in their army the game doesn't just fall apart. I feel like the devs are really trying to reach that point and are trying to ensure games have a certain minimum length in order to ensure that it's more fun for all parties than just a turn 1 tabling.

That said, we've got a ways to go and things that still need ironing out and who knows, if this isn't the last and only edition of 40k going forward (which I assume it isn't, it'll just be a long runner like 2nd was and we'll eventually see a 9th to consolidate all the changes and add some new twists) then the next edition will be better at launch than 8th was.

Rulvek wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

How does the ally system help the GK exactly? It doesn't make GK better.

Is that a serious post? They get several benefits with Allies like decent Anti-Tank for a reasonable price and CP to use on their already too expensive Stratagems or actual bodies to hold objectives, as the idea of Grey Knights holding out to do that is an absolute silly thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
People need to stop trying to kill allies by calling it soup. I'd rather let multiple units from multiple books be viable than go back to a time when entire books were obsolete. Do we honestly want to see more books like Grey Knights? feth no.

Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

Only because the internal balance of those codices is garbage. If they weren't, Guard wouldn't be the crutch they are for Imperial armies.

Hmmm, so, to play with GK, what you have to do is play with IG.
Is that how you say the allies help to play GK?

In the current state with their crap codes? Yes. I ain't happy about it as most GK players are, but unless you have suggestions as to how to make GK a good army, don't bother tossing allies out the window without a plan.

Either way, GK players should be able to ally with Sisters, Guard, and Marines without so much consequence as you keep blaming the mechanic and not the actual problem units.

bananathug wrote:
I agree with some of what Englishman is saying but if you follow his argument to the conclusion you end up with a situation where the question becomes, why balance any armies at all because if you are not playing the most powerful one you are not taking a competitive choice.

Orks are underpowered, that's your fault for not playing eldar. We end up with the solution being "just play ynarri soup?"

I'm not sure that's a healthy point for the game. Even if it is a logically defensible situation I don't think the solution for balance issues should just be "play the new hotness." It's just not fun to see entire swaths of your army competitive unusable and hopefully most of us are in this hobby to have fun.

In addition I think some of the "balance mono factions" comes from people actually wanting to be able to use the models they have collected and painstakingly assembled/painted over the years. A type of gameplay that is obviously not beneficial to GWs bottom line.

GW doesn't care that I have 10k of black templars that I've collected/painted over the last 20 years. In fact, they hate it. They already have my money, they need me to go out and purchase new models in order to satisfy the investors and bean counters. Anecdotally I have three shelves where I keep my army. On the top shelf are the units I'll use (which, unsurprisingly are all new outside of the neophytes[they are not scouts!!!]) the second shelf are units I may use (devs, razors from earlier in the edition, assassins from earlier, stormtalon/raven/hawk) and the bottom shelf is full of everything else.

I think I have at least one of all GW produced marine models/units (outside of the characters). GW already has my money and they need me to go out and buy more. Creating new models is expensive for them, at least more expensive than selling stuff they already have (or at least already have the molds for).

No wonder the new armigers are better than my dreads/preds. Custode bikes are so good. The primaris were a bolt on to an existing already established army and I was going to buy some regardless of the rules (although it sucks that they melt as soon as they see a dark eldar force across the table). Even then they are one of the few marine models that saw a downward points adjustment in the FAQ/CA cycle even though the rest of the dex was in desperate need of help as well.

Either way. I think GW realizes they don't benefit from a balanced game and I think if we're honest with ourselves we don't want a perfectly balanced game. Collecting/hobying/theorizing are all important parts of this game and all of those go stale when the meta is "solved." The only way to keep the meta from being solved is to keep shaking things up. It would be nice if each faction had enough internal diversity and balance that meta shake ups would just require dipping into my faction for tools/tricks to at least compete (cough, eldar, cough) but GW has shown they either don't have the skill or desire to make that happen so we end up with the current situation where we are chasing the meta across codexes.

I agree with a lot of this post. It's in both GWs interest and in our interest to see some amount of "churn", it keeps the hobby vibrant even if it has some downsides. The bright side is that it isn't really necessary to chase the latest hotness unless you're expecting to compete at major tournaments. I mean, it's fun to do, and some local metas push harder than others, but there's tons of wiggle room imo.

Allies just need limitations. That's all there is to it. The best way to do it is points. I wouldn't mind also seeing a "one ally" per army rule. So you could still soup, but it'd be 2 factions, not 3.

Once a limit like this is imposed, we could get a better picture of how mono lists are actually performing. I also wouldn't mind seeing a limit of 1 primarch per table. Because more of them are going to come out, and it's going to get stupid fast.

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies just need limitations. That's all there is to it. The best way to do it is points. I wouldn't mind also seeing a "one ally" per army rule. So you could still soup, but it'd be 2 factions, not 3.

Once a limit like this is imposed, we could get a better picture of how mono lists are actually performing. I also wouldn't mind seeing a limit of 1 primarch per table. Because more of them are going to come out, and it's going to get stupid fast.

When you say points do you mean "Army points" or command points?

Limiting to 2 factions I guess I'd rather not see, though I see where it's coming from. Theoretically if they did the "CPs can only be used by the faction that generates them" then it would push against the use of several factions anyways.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A thought just struck me regarding the Imperium's poor faction to faction balance: isn't that the point of what Guilliman did following the Heresy. I mean, if we're speaking from a narrative standpoint, the fact that monofaction armies in the Imperium are so terrible actually lends well to the flavor of the game since they're supposed to be horribly lopsided to prevent another Horus Heresy situation.

That said, I wish we could have this AND good game balance so that you aren't hosed for latching onto a single faction over others, but if GW was trying to make narrative statements using rules for the Imperium they seem to have nailed it.

Yes from a fluff pov the imperiums various fighting forces are in fact supposed to have weaknesses that only other subfactions have the strengths - although this has been underminned by constant marine additions and lack of interest in non marine factions.

not sure it works trying to have that aspect in game.

The GK fluff says that they are ready to face any enemy with no support of any kind, that they have superior tech, gene seed, have their own psytitans and prognosticators that know where an attack is going to happen, so they are always are on time to stop it. Nothing of that shows up in their rules.

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A thought just struck me regarding the Imperium's poor faction to faction balance: isn't that the point of what Guilliman did following the Heresy. I mean, if we're speaking from a narrative standpoint, the fact that monofaction armies in the Imperium are so terrible actually lends well to the flavor of the game since they're supposed to be horribly lopsided to prevent another Horus Heresy situation.

That said, I wish we could have this AND good game balance so that you aren't hosed for latching onto a single faction over others, but if GW was trying to make narrative statements using rules for the Imperium they seem to have nailed it.

Yes from a fluff pov the imperiums various fighting forces are in fact supposed to have weaknesses that only other subfactions have the strengths - although this has been underminned by constant marine additions and lack of interest in non marine factions.

not sure it works trying to have that aspect in game.

The GK fluff says that they are ready to face any enemy with no support of any kind, that they have superior tech, gene seed, have their own psytitans and prognosticators that know where an attack is going to happen, so they are always are on time to stop it. Nothing of that shows up in their rules.

Grey Knights also support PDF, Guard, Sisters, Inquisition and others when dealing with daemons and either kill or mind wipe the survivors (depending on rank). That said, I will never argue that a codex shouldn't be playable as a monobuild, I was just tossing out the idea that GW might have nailed the idea of the Imperium being reliant on inter-faction relations (even if it was possibly accidental) and that amused me a bit.

Karol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
A thought just struck me regarding the Imperium's poor faction to faction balance: isn't that the point of what Guilliman did following the Heresy. I mean, if we're speaking from a narrative standpoint, the fact that monofaction armies in the Imperium are so terrible actually lends well to the flavor of the game since they're supposed to be horribly lopsided to prevent another Horus Heresy situation.

That said, I wish we could have this AND good game balance so that you aren't hosed for latching onto a single faction over others, but if GW was trying to make narrative statements using rules for the Imperium they seem to have nailed it.

Yes from a fluff pov the imperiums various fighting forces are in fact supposed to have weaknesses that only other subfactions have the strengths - although this has been underminned by constant marine additions and lack of interest in non marine factions.

not sure it works trying to have that aspect in game.

The GK fluff says that they are ready to face any enemy with no support of any kind, that they have superior tech, gene seed, have their own psytitans and prognosticators that know where an attack is going to happen, so they are always are on time to stop it. Nothing of that shows up in their rules.

Nothing in the Space Marine lore tells me to expect to lose half a battle company in every engagement either, but that's how it tends to go.

That might be the angle they are going but it is the wrong angle. Most people want to play mono. It just means competitive 40k wont take off as much as it should. My store has decided to ignore all FAQ's except for points changes at this point. The changes do not make the game better.

 Xenomancers wrote:
That might be the angle they are going but it is the wrong angle. Most people want to play mono. It just means competitive 40k wont take off as much as it should. My store has decided to ignore all FAQ's except for points changes at this point. The changes do not make the game better.

So you're ignoring clarification on rules like that Biovores don't pay for their spore mine shots?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Grey Knights also support PDF, Guard, Sisters, Inquisition and others when dealing with daemons and either kill or mind wipe the survivors (depending on rank). That said, I will never argue that a codex shouldn't be playable as a monobuild, I was just tossing out the idea that GW might have nailed the idea of the Imperium being reliant on inter-faction relations (even if it was possibly accidental) and that amused me a bit.

I find nothing about the state of my army amusing. If GW can't make good codex for everyone, then I am in for every other faction getting the GK treatment. For edition or two, after that GW can do what ever the hell it wants.

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

But it is not. For example Black Templars allied with Sisters is not even remotely superior to mono Guard or mono Dark Eldar.

That's not my argument.

My argument is that Imperium will always be superior to Orks unless Orks are superior to every mono-army that has the Imperium Faction Keyword.

Because in a balanced state between Orks and Imperium, Imperium can have the best stuff from three out of ten codices. All other possible codices from the Imperium codices must be worse or equal to the the best three Ork detachments. If Black Templar are not among the best three (or five, or seven) detachments, all competitive Black Templar armies are inferior to all competitive Ork armies.

Unless there is a limit on allies, there is no reason to not fill your army with the best stuff possible. The best shooting units, the best screening units, the best support, the best combos, best relics, best stratagems. The only way to prevent this is to eliminate all army weaknesses and strengths across Space Marines, AM, Ad Mech, Knights, Custodes etc - which would defeat the point of having most of those codices in the first place.

Therefore, an Imperium army with allies cannot ever be balanced against mono-codex armies from the Imperium and other mono-codex faction at the same time as long as there is no drawback to taking allies. It's logically impossible.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
That might be the angle they are going but it is the wrong angle. Most people want to play mono. It just means competitive 40k wont take off as much as it should. My store has decided to ignore all FAQ's except for points changes at this point. The changes do not make the game better.

So you're ignoring clarification on rules like that Biovores don't pay for their spore mine shots?

Im one of the only nid players around here and I don't use biovores. Issues like this really haven't come up. We are coming up with ideas to make all models playable though. For example - mono custodes are terrible - so I suggested a rule that all their rapid fire weapons become assault (not jetbikes) and the army play a lot better now.

 Marmatag wrote:
Allies just need limitations. That's all there is to it. The best way to do it is points. I wouldn't mind also seeing a "one ally" per army rule. So you could still soup, but it'd be 2 factions, not 3.

Once a limit like this is imposed, we could get a better picture of how mono lists are actually performing. I also wouldn't mind seeing a limit of 1 primarch per table. Because more of them are going to come out, and it's going to get stupid fast.

I know many recent lists are 3 factions, but would Eldar really get shafted by a limit of one? It doesn't seem like it would.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Grey Knights also support PDF, Guard, Sisters, Inquisition and others when dealing with daemons and either kill or mind wipe the survivors (depending on rank). That said, I will never argue that a codex shouldn't be playable as a monobuild, I was just tossing out the idea that GW might have nailed the idea of the Imperium being reliant on inter-faction relations (even if it was possibly accidental) and that amused me a bit.

I find nothing about the state of my army amusing. If GW can't make good codex for everyone, then I am in for every other faction getting the GK treatment. For edition or two, after that GW can do what ever the hell it wants.

Frankly I want to dismiss your point of view due to your biases, but let's talk about it anyways: honestly the issue with Grey Knights has nothing to do with allies. It has to do with how Marines lack the durability they once had (and still pay for) and how they're over-costed across the board on top of that. Allies HELP Marine armies, but considering that they all rely on BA smash captains (except the one guy who was using GK instead) up until this FAQ, the problem is clearly more the baseline of being a Marine in general than it being that allies fix things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
That might be the angle they are going but it is the wrong angle. Most people want to play mono. It just means competitive 40k wont take off as much as it should. My store has decided to ignore all FAQ's except for points changes at this point. The changes do not make the game better.

So you're ignoring clarification on rules like that Biovores don't pay for their spore mine shots?

Im one of the only nid players around here and I don't use biovores. Issues like this really haven't come up. We are coming up with ideas to make all models playable though. For example - mono custodes are terrible - so I suggested a rule that all their rapid fire weapons become assault (not jetbikes) and the army play a lot better now.

So basically you only play homebrew and throw out what GW actually wants the game to look like.

I mean it's not wrong, but it really limits any weight your arguments can have about the FAQs if you don't even play with them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Allies without drawbacks will always be superior to no allies.

Only because the internal balance of those codices is garbage. If they weren't, Guard wouldn't be the crutch they are for Imperial armies.

Tell me, how does one fix the internal balance of 10 imperial codices in a way that not one of them has something worse than any of the others?

Because as soon as someone has something even slightly better than another, you can bet your hat it will be allied in.

The same way if no Imperial armies but Space Marines existed and you needed to balance them vs Chaos and Xenos.

This is the laziness argument again. You can't perfectly balance, so why try? Just toss mechanics out the window without a single thought. Hey, psyker powers aren't balanced, but we aren't just tossing them out either and blaming Psykers entirely for things like Invisibility.

Oh wait people did and now the Psyker phase and most Psykera in general are garbage.

So you are saying all troops in the Imperium should have the same strength and weaknesses?

All shooting units as well?

And the elites?

That guardsmen+tanks+officers need to be have the same strength and weaknesses as custodes+knights+grey knights?

You understand that the only way to do that is to eliminate the reason for codices to exist, right?

The whole problem isn't new. It has appeared in other games as well - the solution has always been the same: The ability to mitigate weaknesses by drawing from other factions/pools/colors/classes MUST come at a price. WH40k is no special snowflake in that regard.

 Jidmah wrote:


That's not my argument.

My argument is that Imperium will always be superior to Orks unless Orks are superior to every mono-army that has the Imperium Faction Keyword.

Because in a balanced state between Orks and Imperium, Imperium can have the best stuff from three out of ten codices. All other possible codices from the Imperium codices must be worse or equal to the the best three Ork detachments. If Black Templar are not among the best three (or five, or seven) detachments, all competitive Black Templar armies are inferior to all competitive Ork armies.

Unless there is a limit on allies, there is no reason to not fill your army with the best stuff possible. The best shooting units, the best screening units, the best support, the best combos, best relics, best stratagems. The only way to prevent this is to eliminate all army weaknesses and strengths across Space Marines, AM, Ad Mech, Knights, Custodes etc - which would defeat the point of having most of those codices in the first place.

Therefore, an Imperium army with allies cannot ever be balanced against mono-codex armies from the Imperium and other mono-codex faction at the same time as long as there is no drawback to taking allies. It's logically impossible.

Or you balance units properly, so that regardless the group of units you bring (excluding some extreme rock-paper-scissors situations) it is balanced against other group of units.

This strength and weakness fallacy must stop. Units should pay points for their effectiveness and that they pay fair amount of points do not mean they need to be the same. If your army's strength is melee, and you spend 30% of your points for shooty units (be they allies or not) you've now diluted your melee strength and this is compenated by increased shootyness, resulting an army which is not more powerful nor less powerful, but one that requires different playstyle.

I think the argument is that there are more effective counters available to you if you play Imperium. For instance, if Orks become meta with light vehicles and tons of Boyz, the Imperium lists might have a unit of 8 Custode Bikes. Because 96 hurricane bolter shots deep striking will clear a couple blobs and the subsequent melee is perfect for dealing with T5 or T6, 4+ or 5+ vehicles.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Grey Knights also support PDF, Guard, Sisters, Inquisition and others when dealing with daemons and either kill or mind wipe the survivors (depending on rank). That said, I will never argue that a codex shouldn't be playable as a monobuild, I was just tossing out the idea that GW might have nailed the idea of the Imperium being reliant on inter-faction relations (even if it was possibly accidental) and that amused me a bit.

I find nothing about the state of my army amusing. If GW can't make good codex for everyone, then I am in for every other faction getting the GK treatment. For edition or two, after that GW can do what ever the hell it wants.

Frankly I want to dismiss your point of view due to your biases, but let's talk about it anyways: honestly the issue with Grey Knights has nothing to do with allies. It has to do with how Marines lack the durability they once had (and still pay for) and how they're over-costed across the board on top of that. Allies HELP Marine armies, but considering that they all rely on BA smash captains (except the one guy who was using GK instead) up until this FAQ, the problem is clearly more the baseline of being a Marine in general than it being that allies fix things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
That might be the angle they are going but it is the wrong angle. Most people want to play mono. It just means competitive 40k wont take off as much as it should. My store has decided to ignore all FAQ's except for points changes at this point. The changes do not make the game better.

So you're ignoring clarification on rules like that Biovores don't pay for their spore mine shots?

Im one of the only nid players around here and I don't use biovores. Issues like this really haven't come up. We are coming up with ideas to make all models playable though. For example - mono custodes are terrible - so I suggested a rule that all their rapid fire weapons become assault (not jetbikes) and the army play a lot better now.

So basically you only play homebrew and throw out what GW actually wants the game to look like.

I mean it's not wrong, but it really limits any weight your arguments can have about the FAQs if you don't even play with them.

I don't think it disqualifies me. I know the rules - play them at tournaments - plus we've played them leading up to now. This new FAQ is crap dude. It might as well not exist. Well see what chapter approved brings. Until then we are just going to have fun. You know chapter approved is going to make big changes anyways.

 Crimson wrote:
Or you balance units properly, so that regardless the group of units you bring (excluding some extreme rock-paper-scissors situations) it is balanced against other group of units.

This strength and weakness fallacy must stop. Units should pay points for their effectiveness and that they pay fair amount of points do not mean they need to be the same. If your army's strength is melee, and you spend 30% of your points for shooty units (be they allies or not) you've now diluted your melee strength and this is compenated by increased shootyness, resulting an army which is not more powerful nor less powerful, but one that requires different playstyle.

This is a fantasy though. Unless units are literally identical for their points (i.e. you generate the same probability curves against all targets both in attack and defense) and there is no synergy either explicitly (i.e. special rules that buff other units) or implicitly (for example this unit helps screen another unit and it does this better than the rest).

It turns out a Castellan with say 9 CP in a mono-Knights list is not as good as a Castellan with 25+ CP with guardsmen screens and Smash captains menacing any obvious countermeasures.
How many points should it be? Which list are we balancing it for? Its effectiveness is fundamentally different.

If Soup isn't a thing, you can try to balance within the pressure system that is a single codex. With soup you have to balance with every single synergy across every single imperial (etc) codex. Every psychic power, warlord trait, unit ability, guard's cheapness for efficient and good CPs etc.

Its back to 7ths formations. There was no reason to take anything outside of formations because you got extra stuff for free. And extra stuff is better.

 Marmatag wrote:
I think the argument is that there are more effective counters available to you if you play Imperium. For instance, if Orks become meta with light vehicles and tons of Boyz, the Imperium lists might have a unit of 8 Custode Bikes. Because 96 hurricane bolter shots deep striking will clear a couple blobs and the subsequent melee is perfect for dealing with T5 or T6, 4+ or 5+ vehicles.

Sure, you have more choice and thus more theoretical options (if you are willing to buy more models*) but then we are basically talking about list tailoring. And the bottom line is that if you tailor to counter one thing then you weaken yourself against another (assuming units are properly costed and there are no god units which are too cheap and good against everything.)

Also, I really don't think it is fair to punish armies for things they could in theory do. Why are we punishing BT & Sisters soup players because some soup players might bring Guard and a Castellan? That is crazy. It is like making marines crap because in theory theory could bring Guilliman (no that was not a good idea.) If there are problem units or combos then address those specifically.

(*GW probably considers this a feature rather than a bug.)

Tyel wrote:

If Soup isn't a thing, you can try to balance within the pressure system that is a single codex. With soup you have to balance with every single synergy across every single imperial (etc) codex. Every psychic power, warlord trait, unit ability, guard's cheapness for efficient and good CPs etc.

But ultimately the process is the same. Sure, it is harder with a bigger group of units, but doesn't mean it cannot be done (to a degree, balance will never be perfect anyway.)

Furthermore, remember that while there are indeed certain soup synergies (some of which are arguably too good) the edition is mostly built against this. Most of the auras, psychic powers and other special rules only affect units of the same faction (unlike in the previous editions.) So this sort of monosynery is weakened when you soup, and should in theory work as counter to the advantages of the soup.

Tyel wrote:

Its back to 7ths formations. There was no reason to take anything outside of formations because you got extra stuff for free. And extra stuff is better.

Agreed, that was terrible. But the allies are not like that, you pay points and detachment slots for them.