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.

Silver144 wrote:


Narrative play, here you go
No need to make matched play jack of all trades. If something fun and narrative, but hurts balance ---> narrative play.

Nah. Matched has never meant to be some super tight hard core tournament rule set, it it the standard way to play the game. And allies are not a meaningful balance problem, despite some people having an irrational hatred for the concept.

 Crimson wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


Narrative play, here you go
No need to make matched play jack of all trades. If something fun and narrative, but hurts balance ---> narrative play.

Nah. Matched has never meant to be some super tight hard core tournament rule set, it it the standard way to play the game. And allies are not a meaningful balance problem, despite some people having an irrational hatred for the concept.

Between super-duper-tight-starcraft-like-balance and gak for fun lives flavors of balance. One of them called "good enouth to make most codexes playable on their own". I guess that one should be named as matched play. And you want narrative fluffy game, but regect, well, actual "narrative play" because matched play somehow is the only one way to play the game. Sounds wierd to me.

 Crimson wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


Narrative play, here you go
No need to make matched play jack of all trades. If something fun and narrative, but hurts balance ---> narrative play.

Nah. Matched has never meant to be some super tight hard core tournament rule set, it it the standard way to play the game. And allies are not a meaningful balance problem, despite some people having an irrational hatred for the concept.

Sure, it's not meant for hardcore competitive plays, but GW begs to differ on idea of balance as its core precept for matched plays:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/24/new-warhammer-40000-three-ways-to-play/
"...to help ensure a balanced game." The game is not balanced currently due to the CP system and how battle brother system allows its exploitation.

Allies as a concept is not a bad idea. It's the unintended effect that it has on the game that creates the issue.

Silver144 wrote:


Between super-duper-tight-starcraft-like-balance and gak for fun lives flavors of balance. One of them called "good enouth to make most codexes playable on their own". I guess that one should be named as matched play. And you want narrative fluffy game, but regect, well, actual "narrative play" because matched play somehow is the only one way to play the game. Sounds wierd to me.

Most codices are perfectly playable on their own outside the panicked Dakka hyperbole. Narrative is for when you want to emulate some specific scenarios, not for normal pickup games with forces that just happen to be composed of eclectic selection of models. I also said nothing about 'narrative and flyffy' (albeit my armies are always flyffy,) I was talking about collecting varied units due modelling preferences, that has nothing directly to do with narrative play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Allies as a concept is not a bad idea. It's the unintended effect that it has on the game that creates the issue.

No. Units being badly balanced against each other and how the CP is generated are the things causing problems, not the allies itself.

 Crimson wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


Between super-duper-tight-starcraft-like-balance and gak for fun lives flavors of balance. One of them called "good enouth to make most codexes playable on their own". I guess that one should be named as matched play. And you want narrative fluffy game, but regect, well, actual "narrative play" because matched play somehow is the only one way to play the game. Sounds wierd to me.

Most codices are perfectly playable on their own outside the panicked Dakka hyperbole. Narrative is for when you want to emulate some specific scenarios, not for normal pickup games with forces that just happen to be composed of eclectic selection of models. I also said nothing about 'narrative and flyffy' (albeit my armies are always flyffy,) I was talking about collecting varied units due modelling preferences, that has nothing directly to do with narrative play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Allies as a concept is not a bad idea. It's the unintended effect that it has on the game that creates the issue.

No. Units being badly balanced against each other and how the CP is generated are the things causing problems, not the allies itself.

If allies are here to stay, then the codex should be balanced across factions, not by armies.

 skchsan wrote:
If allies are here to stay, then the codex should be balanced across factions, not by armies.

Just balance the units themselves.

 Crimson wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


Between super-duper-tight-starcraft-like-balance and gak for fun lives flavors of balance. One of them called "good enouth to make most codexes playable on their own". I guess that one should be named as matched play. And you want narrative fluffy game, but regect, well, actual "narrative play" because matched play somehow is the only one way to play the game. Sounds wierd to me.

Most codices are perfectly playable on their own outside the panicked Dakka hyperbole. Narrative is for when you want to emulate some specific scenarios, not for normal pickup games with forces that just happen to be composed of eclectic selection of models. I also said nothing about 'narrative and flyffy' (albeit my armies are always flyffy,) I was talking about collecting varied units due modelling preferences, that has nothing directly to do with narrative play.

I will disagree. Try to play tournament with BA or SW on their own and you will see how "perfectly playable" they when you will meet knight or eldar soup.

The idea I am trying to implement is that codex "imperium" and codex "eldar" should be narrative only for those who want to have fun and don't care about the balance. Ally should be removed or nerfed, so they have upsides, AND downsides, not just upsides



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
If allies are here to stay, then the codex should be balanced across factions, not by armies.

Just balance the units themselves.

Impossible to balance all units. DA librarial perfecrly fine, but when he is in combo with rune priest - we had broken -to hit combo. How will you bslance this? Nerf librarian? Then monoDA will be even worse.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Some of the most profitable games in the world are the worst designed. Especially when it comes to game balance. Pay-to-win mobile bs is a trillion dollar industry for example, you can work your way down from there. People will happily pay for an in-game advantage. Guarantee you Tau sold a gakload more in 6th or 7th than they have in 8th, does that mean that 6th ed Tau and Riptide Wings were the pinnacle of 40k game design for the race?

Those games are free to play and the ratio of paying to non-paying is quite wide. Typically a small subset of 1% of the user base pays obscene amounts of money - the whales if you will.

 Crimson wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
If allies are here to stay, then the codex should be balanced across factions, not by armies.

Just balance the units themselves.

Dude, do you like main Inari or something like that, because you sound ridiculous. All the problems w40k had was because people could cherry pick their melific lords with demons, their Inari, their cpt+custodes+knights+IG , while at the same time GW was going over their heads to kill any army, save eldar, from being valid as mono. They nerfed marines hard, they more or less killed BAs etc


Soup should be relageted to narrative/open play, and kept as far away from matched play as possible. The fact that souping exist, GW can always bring up some stupid argument to why they are not fixing stuff in forms of, well if you take 1500pts of not the army you want in your army, it will work better, so no changes for you this time around.

Silver144 wrote:


I will disagree. Try to play tournament with BA or SW on their own and you will see how "perfectly playable" they when you will meet knight or eldar soup.

Tournament is already not a standard game. Most armies are fine in casual play. But yeah, marines are weak, it is known. They're weaker than mono guard or mono eldar too. This is not a soup problem.

The idea I am trying to implement is that codex "imperium" and codex "eldar" should be narrative only for those who want to have fun and don't care about the balance. Ally should be removed or nerfed, so they have upsides, AND downsides, not just upsides

Taking allies have downsides. It costs points. Most auras and abilities of differnt allied factions do not work on each other, weakening the synergy of your army. If this doesn't always wotk in practice, it is because some units are just too good, and always worth taking regardless of this.

Impossible to balance all units. DA librarial perfecrly fine, but when he is in combo with rune priest - we had broken -to hit combo. How will you bslance this? Nerf librarian? Then monoDA will be even worse.

Is this some to hit penalty stacking thing? Again, not a soup problem, asyryani can do this on their own. There is an issue with how the penalties stack, fix that.

The way that should be balanced is easy. Librarians from different books should not be able to be taken in the same detachment. It's basically an exploit. Yeah - they all have adept astartes keyword but they really need a modification to this rule.

The intent of the change they made in chapter approved to prevent you from taking celestine with a detachment of gaurd is intended to stop nonsense like libbys from different books from being taken in the same detachment too. Space marines are just unique in 40k and have the same keywords accorss all of them.

Is the issue not so much that 'soup' is a bad thing more CP generation skewing lists is?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Some of the most profitable games in the world are the worst designed. Especially when it comes to game balance. Pay-to-win mobile bs is a trillion dollar industry for example, you can work your way down from there. People will happily pay for an in-game advantage. Guarantee you Tau sold a gakload more in 6th or 7th than they have in 8th, does that mean that 6th ed Tau and Riptide Wings were the pinnacle of 40k game design for the race?

Those games are free to play and the ratio of paying to non-paying is quite wide. Typically a small subset of 1% of the user base pays obscene amounts of money - the whales if you will.

that's exactly my point? I literally said just that in a later post?

 Crimson wrote:

Silver144 wrote:


I will disagree. Try to play tournament with BA or SW on their own and you will see how "perfectly playable" they when you will meet knight or eldar soup.

Tournament is already not a standard game. Most armies are fine in casual play. But yeah, marines are weak, it is known. They're weaker than mono guard or mono eldar too. This is not a soup problem.

The idea I am trying to implement is that codex "imperium" and codex "eldar" should be narrative only for those who want to have fun and don't care about the balance. Ally should be removed or nerfed, so they have upsides, AND downsides, not just upsides

Taking allies have downsides. It costs points. Most auras and abilities of differnt allied factions do not work on each other, weakening the synergy of your army. If this doesn't always wotk in practice, it is because some units are just too good, and always worth taking regardless of this.

Impossible to balance all units. DA librarial perfecrly fine, but when he is in combo with rune priest - we had broken -to hit combo. How will you bslance this? Nerf librarian? Then monoDA will be even worse.

Is this some to hit penalty stacking thing? Again, not a soup problem, asyryani can do this on their own. There is an issue with how the penalties stack, fix that.

I think I get the point. We have different point of view. Both of us think, that there are two ways to play games. You think that there is "matched play" and "tournament", I think that there is "narrative play" and "matched play". You think that "matched play" should be for fun games and this "tournament" games are the one competitive. I think that matched play fit that role and we do not need new extra way to play, while for fun we have the "narrative play". That is the dead end of discussion.

we already have 3 ways of playing

open play
narrative play
matched play


a massive part of this playerbase is competitive players. Can we not have the one designed for balanced play to be balanced? jeez. I play narrative and competitive, but some people just want to gak on competitive because they don't care about it. If you want to play fluffy, go play one of the other ones designed for it

 SHUPPET wrote:
we already have 3 ways of playing

open play
narrative play
matched play


a massive part of this playerbase is competitive players. Can we not have the one designed for balanced play to be balanced? jeez. I play narrative and competitive, but some people just want to gak on competitive because they don't care about it. If you want to play fluffy, go play one of the other ones designed for it

Yep, but some thinks that there is also "tournament play" which is somehow not the matched play. Well, they have right for that opinion.

Silver144 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
we already have 3 ways of playing

open play
narrative play
matched play


a massive part of this playerbase is competitive players. Can we not have the one designed for balanced play to be balanced? jeez. I play narrative and competitive, but some people just want to gak on competitive because they don't care about it. If you want to play fluffy, go play one of the other ones designed for it

Yep, but some thinks that there is also "tournament play" which is somehow not the matched play. Well, they have right for that opinion.

Thats the problem. Right now you get casual players who play with points, and then get into the balance discussions when they should be quiet. Then you get dumb answers like "Centurions are great in the game cause they are fun to paint!" when someone asks if Centurions are worth it.

If we can get an organized plays segment, then maybe we can clean out that kind of foolishness.

I think that the majority of players play semi-competitive, and play using points for pick-up games at local clubs or something. It's what I've seen the most anyways. Most people do build strong lists, but won't go overboard in trying to keep complete optimisation and sometimes just include models or units that they find fun to play with.

 techsoldaten wrote:


Perhaps I was confused, I thought you were arguing Xenos armies were disadvantaged because they can't take allies. I assumed this included Tau.

I find difficult to have a discussion if you keep changing the cards on the table.

Darsath wrote:
I think that the majority of players play semi-competitive, and play using points for pick-up games at local clubs or something. It's what I've seen the most anyways. Most people do build strong lists, but won't go overboard in trying to keep complete optimisation and sometimes just include models or units that they find fun to play with.

Sounds about right.

Even with 'narrative' games you are usually playing towards some objective, and if nothing else a well balanced game would mean you don't need to try and balance the mess yourself when setting up the game. And everything else is competitive in the sense of winning or losing even if it's not tournament style optimized lists.

Silver144 wrote:

Yep, but some thinks that there is also "tournament play" which is somehow not the matched play. Well, they have right for that opinion.

Well, there is. There are even extra rule suggestions for such play in the rulebook. Thing is, narrative is not fit for random pick up games. It is for when you and your friends have time to devise specific scenario and lists for that scenario. Matched is just the standard way to play the game.

Also, allies are really not a problem in themselves. There are some problematic interactions, and there are a great number of miscosted units. These are the things creating problems. Blanket bans or restrictions are bad tools. If you use some blanket soup nerfs to affect those top lists, you also hit the completely unproblematic ones. Is someone really thinking that allying Ad Mech and Black Templars is somehow broken and needs to be nerfed? And yes, addressing specific issues takes more effeort, sure, but it is the right way to do these things. It just feels to me that if Blood Angels and Saim-Hann were dominating the tournaments, half of Dakka's solution would be to ban red models from the matched play.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I disagree with the idea SM and BA are the worst armies in the game. They're more mid-tier, and both are a lot better allied with a Guard detachment.

You just said, that the reason non-soup armies have weaker rules is because they don't sell enough. But I point out soup armies that are fan favorites with subpar rules, even worse than Xeno factions, and you claim it's fine because they can soup? Do you even read what you're saying? You realise you just completely contradicted yourself?

Actually, what I did say is:

- Xenos armies are weaker because they don't sell enough models. Eldar are the exception.

- BA and SM armies are midtier, and they get better with soup.

There's nothing contradictory about those 2 statements. I'm not arguing that sales translates into better rules, I'm arguing sales translates into attention from the design staff.

I can't think of armies with more needs than Tau / Necrons / Orks. Each one needs new units, stats adjustments, downward points changes, improved Strategems, and better mechanics around their gimmics.

Unlike Blood Angels and Space Marines, these armies will not get better with soup. Let's say you could suddenly ally Necrons with Guard, you would still be handicapping yourself by taking Necrons. The lack of allies is not their problem, it's the armies themselves.

While it looks like Orks are getting their due, I don't believe GW is suddenly going to invest a lot of design time into historical non-sellers like Necrons and Tau. For that matter, it could be another 10 years before we see another new Ork model if lot of people don't buy those new buggies. Something would need to change for a Xenos renaissance to occur, like a sudden influx of new players buying them at levels comparable to Space Marines.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Sales are a reflection of 'good' game design. If you don't think that's true for 40k, I'm asking you to provide a better definition of what good means, if you have one. I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean by 'counter productive and unrealistic' here.

Good design, almost exclusively when discussing competitive gaming, means fair and rewarding play, good balance, and viability for as many choices, and playstyles, as possible, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Bundling 10 factions into one and giving them all fluctuating power levels achieves the opposite of this.

Never when people talk about "game design" are they referring to profitability. That's called "profitability". Good game design does not equal profitability, nor vice versa. There is no correlation. Again, some of the most profitable games in the world are gakky, P2W games aimed at capturing "whales", the customers who will spend thousands, or more, for an in-game advantage over others. That is not good game design, it's just good sales. At the same time, some of the best reviewed games in the world sold a crapton, God of War, Witcher 3, Spiderman, etc being great examples. There is no correlation, trying to force one is counter-productive.

You're welcome to your opinion but the only thing video games with tabletop games have in common is the word 'game.'

Just the profit off the new Spider Man game is likely to be greater than Games Workshop's annual revenue, possibly by several factors. OTOH, the average tabletop game ends up being a financial loss for the creator, regardless of how 'good' the game is designed.

There are no platinum titles for the tabletop and there never will be. Different audiences, different channel economics, different goals & motivation for buyers / producers / distributors, different market size, different media ecosystem, etc. While you may personally see them as equal, that's not a reflection of how most people entertain themselves. Comparing 40k with P2W games is apples and oranges, there's nothing in common between the two.

To demonstrate the inadequacy of 'good' rulesets as a metric: There was an interview earlier this year with a games designer for Games Workshop. He said the studio is going to take another look at the early Codex releases for 8th edition, like Codex: Space Marines and Grey Knights, once all the Codexes are released.

Do you see that as a function of good game design or cash flow / revenue management? SM players (along with other factions) have gone about a year with some pretty rough rules. The company is having it's best year on record financially and, despite some revenue warnings, still looks to be doing incredibly well next year.

GW could have released a FAQ at any point, but what would that have changed? If people are buying the game and enjoying it, what does a 'good' ruleset matter? GW didn't decide to scrap 7th edition because they wanted to test new ideas, they scrapped 7th edition because sales were slowing down. This can be demonstrated with financial reports.

Your definition of 'good' uses relative terms that can't be quantified and references itself to boot. 'Fair' means one thing to the victor and one thing to the loser. You can't say 'good' is defined by 'good balance,' you can't use a word to define its own meaning. 'Rewarding' has personal meanings to each player that can't be universalized, there are plenty of people who play just because they like the look of the models. And 40k has always had flexibility in terms of unit selection, opinions may differ as to whether or not there's enough.

The term 'quality of game design' does not appear to matter much and successful game designers certainly do not give it more weight than profitability. If you want to achieve those qualities listed in your definition, buy more Xenos models. Every decision GW has made since AOS was released appears to be guided by revenue and profitability.

But, again, don't blame it on the soup.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Comparing 40k with P2W games is apples and oranges, there's nothing in common between the two.

Sigh. I didn't compare them. I gave an example of how just because something can sell well, doesn't automatically mean it's well designed, as you are literally claiming. I'm sure that same statement is applicable to whatever medium you choose, not just Freemium mobile games. However, as another poster has said to you:


I find difficult to have a discussion if you keep changing the cards on the table.


It's difficult to even keep up with the loops you keep spinning, and your walls of text that aren't even acknowledging the statements being made, instead just ones you've invented. Your entire argument boils down to = if it sells well, it's designed well, which is utterly incorrect. Is there some logic as to why you think that applys to tabletops but nothing else?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Sigh. I didn't compare them. I gave an example of how just because something can sell well, doesn't automatically mean it's well designed, as you are literally claiming. I'm sure that same statement is applicable to whatever medium you choose, not just Freemium mobile games. However, as another poster has said to you:

I find difficult to have a discussion if you keep changing the cards on the table.

It's difficult to even keep up with the loops you keep spinning.

Correct. You took an example from a completely different genre, which is irrelevant to the conversation, and used it to make a point. To which I responded: apples to oranges.

It feels like I have an adequate understanding of the back and forth between us. It's probably unnecessary for you to continue explaining the conversation to me.

Perhaps you could consider making an actual point in response. Right now, this just feels condescending and patronizing.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I think a solution to the IG CP battery would be to re-introduce Platoons.
It wouldn't inhibit our ability to field Guardmen as the Guard, but reduce the rate at which they generate CP [specifically, doubling the cost of a CP battalion, bring the cost/5 CP's roughly into line with the cost per 5 CP's that Astartes pay].

Really, I think the solution to many of the Guard problems would be to re-introduce features from previous editions.

NO.

We have been over this time and time and fething time again. Platoons won't "fix" anything. "Reintroducing features from previous editions" won't fix anything.

Guard are an army that needed a full rework before this edition, and it didn't happen. End of story. There's no real denying this as the concept wasn't ever going to translate over well.

You want Guard to legitimately be "fixed"? You want them removed as a "cheap army"? Then bring them up to par with Tau and Skitarii--the armies that they were supposed to be on par with, fluffwise.

Alternatively if we have to be stuck with this garbage, add in rules preventing a Guard character from being Warlord. Add in rules preventing them from sharing CPs. Make it so these leeches can't use Guard for anything but board control.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I can't think of armies with more needs than Tau / Necrons / Orks. Each one needs new units, stats adjustments, downward points changes, improved Strategems, and better mechanics around their gimmics.

Yeah... what?
Tau are just one off being Top Tier - and I suspect, if Soup were hard banned, would be there or there abouts.
I suspect Orks are going to be very reasonable. Not Guard/DE "take almost anything you like" but there are fairly clear builds which should have legs.
Necrons are in trouble. Yes they could do with new units, stat adjustments and stratagems - but really its just about points. Give them a blanket 20% points reduction across the board and I am pretty sure they would be competitive. GW could do that with a stroke of a pen next month.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Is the issue not so much that 'soup' is a bad thing more CP generation skewing lists is?

As far as I can see, the two main advantages to soup are

1. Being able to min-max optimal unit combos across codices
2. Being able to take advantage of CP generation to benefit other armies

I think you could nerf soup as the be-all and end-all of competitive gameplay without making it unplayable by simply changing the CP system. Restricting CP generation to 'per-faction' would be a good first step, revamping the CP system to start with a given amount (depending on the points level) and then spending it to take detachments would be even better.

You would still have the ability to take combined armies and synergize units, but it would come at the cost of reduced CP availability- which I think is both fitting, and enough of a disadvantage that soup might not be the go-to for competitive play, without completely neutering it for casual players as well. It'd also kill the use of Guard as a CP battery, which IMO would be a very good change.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Sigh. I didn't compare them. I gave an example of how just because something can sell well, doesn't automatically mean it's well designed, as you are literally claiming. I'm sure that same statement is applicable to whatever medium you choose, not just Freemium mobile games. However, as another poster has said to you:

I find difficult to have a discussion if you keep changing the cards on the table.

It's difficult to even keep up with the loops you keep spinning.

Correct. You took an example from a completely different genre, which is irrelevant to the conversation, and used it to make a point. To which I responded: apples to oranges.

It feels like I have an adequate understanding of the back and forth between us. It's probably unnecessary for you to continue explaining the conversation to me.

Perhaps you could consider making an actual point in response. Right now, this just feels condescending and patronizing.

What? I asked you a question that completely deconstructs that entire response, and you completely ignored it. I did make an actual point. The question is why did you ignore it?

I'll ask again.

Why is sales a reflection of good design in tabletop wargaming, and tabletop wargaming alone? Why is this not the case for video games? What are you basing your assertion of? Can you verify this at all, or at least explain the logic you are trying to push here? Explain why you think people would willingly pay for an advantage in P2W video games, but nobody would dream of doing so for 40k. If you're going to say the example is invalid, you have to explain why, just saying "apples to oranges" isn't an explanation at all. There's zero reason why that isn't an excellent example of how people are more than willing to spend plenty of money on poorly designed games. Explain why people wouldn't do the same in 40k. Thanks.

Tyel wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I can't think of armies with more needs than Tau / Necrons / Orks. Each one needs new units, stats adjustments, downward points changes, improved Strategems, and better mechanics around their gimmics.

Yeah... what?
Tau are just one off being Top Tier - and I suspect, if Soup were hard banned, would be there or there abouts.
I suspect Orks are going to be very reasonable. Not Guard/DE "take almost anything you like" but there are fairly clear builds which should have legs.
Necrons are in trouble. Yes they could do with new units, stat adjustments and stratagems - but really its just about points. Give them a blanket 20% points reduction across the board and I am pretty sure they would be competitive. GW could do that with a stroke of a pen next month.

Eh... I don't know if Tau are all that. They were better before RO3, at least in the games I played against them.

My point was that these armies don't improve with soup. Either they would handicap an allied force or an allied force would handicap them.

Let's pretend you could ally Tau with Guard. Would they benefit from Guard spam and some heavy weapons teams? Likely not, they have good shooting already and the cost of infantry units would be taking away from points for drones. You would be better off with monolist Tau.

Let's pretend you could ally Necrons with Guard. Would they benefit from Guard spam and some heavy weapons teams? Probably, but then you still have the problems you have with Necrons. You would be better off just playing Guard.

OTOH, if Necron Warriors went down in cost by 33%, got an extra point of toughness and an additional point of AP, then you would have something interesting to put on the table. Let's say GW buffs other units in a similar fashion. At that point, why would you need Guard?

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies have basically always existed in some form. People just pretend it didn't to fit their own narrative.

Allies are fine, and quite frankly if anything prove how bad internal balance is with differing codices. That's a good thing.

When they were limited to house rules no they didn't.

And question is are thev good to have? If you don't care about balancing or are willing to make special scenario to ensure balance sure. As standard though allies kill any pretension of balance. Simple as that.

Now if you don't carb about balance fine but don't complain about unbalance then

It wasn't limited to house rules. 2nd edition had it, 3-4th had it in some form, and then we got it more lax with 6th. It was there outside maybe 5th when GK got a new codex and Sisters fell off the face of the earth.

Also the issue is always miscosted units. Do you honestly think banning allies is going to make GK a playable codex all the sudden, or is it the issue of unit pricing making them unplayable rather than an IG force being able to take Jetbike Captains? If you answer the former you're being absolutely dishonest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
I have yet to see a competitive person in person say "allies are a problem." This seems like an outcry coming more from the casual community than anything else.

It doesn't make what they're saying invalid. You can be casual and still want a good matched play ruleset. But let's not start attributing things to the competitive playerbase as a whole. Most people are happy with the current state of the game. Which is why you see huge numbers at tournaments.

Here is a list of the one-loss or better factions at SoCal:

Astra Militarum
Tyranids
Dark Eldar
Ynnari
Custodes
Chaos Daemons
Eldar
Chaos Space Marines
Tau
Imperial Knights
Harlequins
Thousand Sons
Death Guard
Renegade Knights
Orks

I removed duplicates. For instance, Nurgle Daemons and Chaos Daemons, i lumped together in Chaos Daemons.

That's really impressive from a balance perspective. Anyone with 1 loss could easily have been in the top 10, or ended up undefeated winning the whole thing. Basically 1 loss means you're doing damn good.

It's also worth noting that winning 4 games was good enough for top 50. Considering there was over 170 players, that's not bad. If you look at the top 50, pretty much every major faction is represented.

Balance doomsayers need to chill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That's literally because Doom as written is a broken power. If it were sticking to only Craftworld units gaining benefit it wouldn't be an issue.

Oh please. It is a deniable power than hits one unit. It's only good on big targets that will soak a lot of firepower. Guilliman is a walking army-wide doom for 400 points.

Well if it really weren't an issue that single Farseer wouldn't have been brought in then, huh?

No, Doom is an issue and needs to be nerfed in some form.