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.

callidusx3 wrote:
Well, in my campaign, I put in point increases from week to week along with a requirement that these points be spent on experience point increases. The info on our campaign structure can be found at the link within this thread:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/767039.page#10234997

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS.

DO THIS.

It gives an advantage to factions that can't tailor their lists due to either less models or less model options in game, it allows people to have fun watching their models level up without having to worry about "oh should I keep this or disband this guy and replace him with an identical clone", it's just a good time all around.

callidusx3 wrote:
Well, in my campaign, I put in point increases from week to week along with a requirement that these points be spent on experience point increases. The info on our campaign structure can be found at the link within this thread:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/767039.page#10234997

These rules still benefit the winner more. You provide no death protection and still require models to earn experience to level up, but then forbid anyone from spending their new capped points on more models even if they have no ranks to add to anyone.

To the original poster:

It depends. I’m 10 weeks into a 12 week campaign playing as Astartes. My level 3 plasma sniper buffed by a level 1 auspex comms is worth their extra points. But I’ve also played 3 recent games using a level 1 Primaris sgt with the rest of my points in a Primaris fire team with no other specialists against opponents with 4 high level specialists. I enjoy playing to win the scenario and select models from my roster to help with each game.

I am all for balancing mechanics for the individual games in a campaign. It is hard enough to keep a group like minded players to do a campaign. It becomes near impossible if the half the players don't have any chance 2 or 3 games if the game includes, 'strong get stronger and weak get weaker' mechanics. I know I wouldn't want to play if the game and/or campaign was practically determined before the first model touched the table.

That would be like doing a tournament where players gets +10% points for every game they win. Which I can't imagine would be a popular tournament.

I am pretty used to Kill Team's mechanics for this. Deadzone 1st ed. did the same thing for campaigns. It was really only an issue for the elite strike teams who already couldn't field a lot models. As long as the game allows the player to decline level ups and the campaign considers including a slight escalation element, shouldn't nearly the issue that just giving free stuff to players is.

Of course, I though Gladius detachments in 7th were a bad idea too, so what do I know. I am a big believer in house ruling tabletop games since it is so easy to do so compared to computer games. So if you group wants to do that, more power to you. Just don't say I didn't warn you when 3 games in you guys determine that half you have no chance of winning, or worst; you get one player that will be near impossible to take down for the rest of the campaign which does make it a series of barely connected games for everyone else.

DarknessEternal wrote:

callidusx3 wrote:
Well, in my campaign, I put in point increases from week to week along with a requirement that these points be spent on experience point increases. The info on our campaign structure can be found at the link within this thread:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/767039.page#10234997

These rules still benefit the winner more. You provide no death protection and still require models to earn experience to level up, but then forbid anyone from spending their new capped points on more models even if they have no ranks to add to anyone.

It does seem a little awkward (and potentially frustrating) to include a point cost for upgrades and increase the point limit for games each week to prevent people from having to continually abandon team members but then not allow players to spend those points as they see fit (i.e.on more models). It feels a bit like free upgrades, but with additional bookkeeping and an added point of contention if someone joins late.

Have there been any issues on that front?

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am all for balancing mechanics for the individual games in a campaign. It is hard enough to keep a group like minded players to do a campaign. It becomes near impossible if the half the players don't have any chance 2 or 3 games if the game includes, 'strong get stronger and weak get weaker' mechanics. I know I wouldn't want to play if the game and/or campaign was practically determined before the first model touched the table.

That would be like doing a tournament where players gets +10% points for every game they win. Which I can't imagine would be a popular tournament.

I am pretty used to Kill Team's mechanics for this. Deadzone 1st ed. did the same thing for campaigns. It was really only an issue for the elite strike teams who already couldn't field a lot models. As long as the game allows the player to decline level ups and the campaign considers including a slight escalation element, shouldn't nearly the issue that just giving free stuff to players is.

Of course, I though Gladius detachments in 7th were a bad idea too, so what do I know. I am a big believer in house ruling tabletop games since it is so easy to do so compared to computer games. So if you group wants to do that, more power to you. Just don't say I didn't warn you when 3 games in you guys determine that half you have no chance of winning, or worst; you get one player that will be near impossible to take down for the rest of the campaign which does make it a series of barely connected games for everyone else.

What unwinnable games are you playing in KT? Remember, everyone is gaining xp at pretty much the same rate, so all the participants should be on about even footing. Even if we disregard that, though, and take some extremely unlikely situation into account, like one team somehow having every single member be a level higher than their opponent, it's still not that huge of a difference. Certainly not larger than the disparity between a numerous KT and an elite KT who're both paying for upgrades, which basically amounts to asking the first person to play with 16% fewer points (and this would affect pretty much every game once the campaign gets rolling, not just a theoretical corner case).

Yes, you could simply wipe your roster clean after every game as that player, but that's tantamount to saying every guardsman, ork boy, fire warrior, scout, guardian, etc. is incapable of learning from experience. Why cling to an experience system that only benefits a portion of the factions? Surely we can do better.

brumbaer wrote:Hyperbole is a rethoric tool to make a point clear, so what ?

I‘m more often the organiser of campaigns than not and love to try/develop different concepts i.e. https://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/27062-cac-computer-aided-campaign/
But I have also played some as player „only“, one of them being a KT rule book campaign. And yes the teams increased levels at different speeds. And yes compensating this with the loss of a model or two helps game balance. I expect nobody to argue about charging every model for a device that allows it to reroll 1-s to hit. Why would it be different for the same upgrade by any other means i.e. experience ?

So over the years I have collected some experience regarding running and playing campaigns.
I have seen campaigns run into the ground in two rounds and other running for 20 rounds. The short lived were usualy the ones with imbalanced battles.

I‘m sure you have collected your own experience, playing and running campaigns, and I expect them to be different to the ones I made, or we wouldn‘t have this discussion.
Let‘s agree to disagree.

Not aimed at you personally, since we've reached an impasse, but at its excessive use in general: hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration of the facts for emotional impact. Not exactly useful when trying to achieve balance in a multi-variable system that's built on the presumption that each unit has a numerical worth. "But the two point bolt pistol tax on Deathwatch Primaris killed my grandmother!" isn't a particularly helpful statement. Showing that said two point increase pushes the model below the power curve would be. Logos, not pathos, is what we need when trying to balance things.


Again, one of the main issues is that the costs are flat. Just as a quick and dirty example: let's say that a model's ability to reroll hit rolls of 1 in either the shooting or fight phase increases it's value by about 8% (half of a 1/6th chance to get another shot/attack; disregarding other aspects for simplicity). 8% of the point cost of a grot is .24. 8% of a Tyranid Warrior with a Venom Cannon is 1.92. At a flat one point per upgrade, the grot is getting a deal that's eight times worse than the tyranid.

I don't think anyone is going to call that balanced.

@Trimarius

If you remember, I wrote that the flat cost is probably not the best way to handle this. We agree on this, but I find it better than making upgrades free.

The balancing factor is the toll the points cost increase takes on your army composition.

On a high body count, low model cost list, you will upgrade some specialist or effective fire teams and not the masses except it is something exceptionally good, favouring your style of play.

While the relative points cost (upgrade cost to model cost) is high, its influence on army composition is low (ignoring effects by the bonus the upgrade gives might have). You give up an Orc or just a Grot if you had a point left to spend.

On a low body count, high model cost list the relative cost is low, but the influence on army composition is high.

To have to give up a GK to make some other model re-roll 1s might make you think about the effectiveness of such a relative points-wise cheap upgrade.

The player has to decide whether it's worth to upgrade or not. The fact that the lists with the models that benefit more from the upgrade usually are disadvantaged more regarding army composition is IMHO the balancing factor.

And no it's not perfect, but it's better than giving free upgrades.

To allow low body count teams to upgrade without shrinking their team too much, you can increase the game size.
If you add 10 points you can upgrade 2 levels, add 20 points and it's 5 levels. I assume that on a 4 or 5 model team you will mainly use specialist.
The high body count team could do the same for specialists, which would leave the low body count presumably at an advantage, assuming that the expensive models are "better" and so profit more from any upgrade.
But with the points increase they could also upgrade some Fire Teams, they would otherwise not upgrade. Or the Orcs buy an additional Burna and 2 Grots or whatever. And than they might get as much or even more out of the points increase than the GK.

Well, after having lost Every. Single. Game. This campaign, with last night being no exception, and seeing as the closest I've come to winning was when everything was at level 1-2, I'll bring fresh guys next game (besides my level 3 Plasma Sniper). I'll let you know how it goes.

(Edit: and yes I remembered everyone's abilities finally)

Good luck.

@brumbaer
We definitely agree that the current system is flawed, no argument there. Hopefully GW comes out with an actual campaign supplement at some point and puts these issues to rest, leaving us free to complain about new things.

I just find that an experience system where the correct choice for whole factions is to not use it (or to continually drop your experienced warriors, really, as there's not a way to opt out or stop at a particular level) has failed and would rather rely on the assumed balance of the base points and the extremely even rate of experience gain to keep things in parity.

You're right, though, we are going in circles, so I'll just advocate one last time for everyone to give it a try and see if anything crops up that's as damaging to balance as the 16% "horde tax" or to the idea of a growing a unit over time as mustering out models after they get too good at their jobs, then leave it alone.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Well, after having lost Every. Single. Game. This campaign, with last night being no exception, and seeing as the closest I've come to winning was when everything was at level 1-2, I'll bring fresh guys next game (besides my level 3 Plasma Sniper). I'll let you know how it goes.

(Edit: and yes I remembered everyone's abilities finally)

What are you generally running/playing against? Maybe there's something we can spot that'll give you an edge? And give us an excuse to stop beating this poor, dead horse.

Game 1 was Admech, and I lost more to the environment than from the opponent.

Game 2 was versus GSC, who ran up the middle and took advantage of all of my misses to wipe my team in melee.

Game 3 was my closet to winning, me, another Militarum player, GSC again, and Space Marines. GSC and Militarum focused on the Marine player, while I focused on the Militarum player. I only lost due to the GSC player scoring an objective, putting him one point ahead.

Game 4 was against Necrons. I tied, but defender (ie Necron player) won ties. Better planning and remembering my abilities would have helped.

Game 5 was versus Marines and Necrons. I was focused fired by the other two players.

Game 6 was against Necrons and Militarum. Had I not gotten broken, I would have had the most points

Game 7 this week was against a different GSC player. I brought my commander. They got into melee range. Guess what happened.

My Roster thus far is:

Level 3 Strategist (Barebones Company Commander, can't change this campaign) Advisor and Master Tactician
Level 2 leader (Tempestor with Hot-Shot Laspistol and Power Sword)
Level 1 Leader same as above.
Level 3 Sniper (Scion Gunner with Plasma). Sharpshooter and Eagle-Eye
Level 2 Comms (Guardsmen with Vox), Expert
Level 2 Heavy (Scion Gunner with Hot Shot Volley Gun), Suppressor
Level 2 Demo (Guardsmen Gunner with Flamer), Pyro
Level 1 Heavy as above Heavy,
Level 1 Scout Scion
Level 1 Veteran Scion

Level 2 Scion Fireteam: 3 Scion with Hot-Shot Lasgun, 2 Scion Gunner with Hot Shot Volley Gun, Lucky and Skilled
Level 1 Special Weapons Fireteam, 3 Special Weapons Gunners with Flamers

I'd disregard the multiplayer games entirely. They're good for a lark, but they never work out from a "tight, balanced game" point of view. It's almost inevitable that someone gets screwed over by their very nature, with whoever teams up first and betrays their ally first winning.

It sounds like the Admech and Necron games were close, so the issue is remembering your abilities and GSC getting you into melee. What sort of tactics/models are they using to make that happen?

If they're rolling mostly melee, positioning will be important, as you'll want to either be up somewhere high with good firing lanes to make them have to climb (you can also cheese it by filling up a floor to deny them anywhere to land) or move so that the charges next turn are difficult ones (either into heavy overwatch or just a fair distance). Don't forget that you can fall back as a response to being charged (even after firing overwatch earlier that turn), which can take a moderate 7" charge into a much more difficult 10" one.

You'll also want to use the normal fall back rules to your advantage, as anyone who survives a round of melee (granted, not too likely against some of the nastier stuff) can just back up, leaving that melee beast unable to charge anyone at all that turn (regardless of who activated first). You can set this up yourself by leaving a model near enough to who you think they'll charge to be consolidated into, then falling back the next round after getting in some free melee attacks on that first turn (probably won't kill them, but there's no harm in trying) if they take the bait. Nothing GSC can field likes taking a bunch of focused fire when stranded like that.

 Trimarius wrote:
I'd disregard the multiplayer games entirely. They're good for a lark, but they never work out from a "tight, balanced game" point of view. It's almost inevitable that someone gets screwed over by their very nature, with whoever teams up first and betrays their ally first winning.

It sounds like the Admech and Necron games were close, so the issue is remembering your abilities and GSC getting you into melee. What sort of tactics/models are they using to make that happen?

If they're rolling mostly melee, positioning will be important, as you'll want to either be up somewhere high with good firing lanes to make them have to climb (you can also cheese it by filling up a floor to deny them anywhere to land) or move so that the charges next turn are difficult ones (either into heavy overwatch or just a fair distance). Don't forget that you can fall back as a response to being charged (even after firing overwatch earlier that turn), which can take a moderate 7" charge into a much more difficult 10" one.

You'll also want to use the normal fall back rules to your advantage, as anyone who survives a round of melee (granted, not too likely against some of the nastier stuff) can just back up, leaving that melee beast unable to charge anyone at all that turn (regardless of who activated first). You can set this up yourself by leaving a model near enough to who you think they'll charge to be consolidated into, then falling back the next round after getting in some free melee attacks on that first turn (probably won't kill them, but there's no harm in trying) if they take the bait. Nothing GSC can field likes taking a bunch of focused fire when stranded like that.

AdMech game was a fluke; lost half of my team due to the "There's something on me!" Environmental effect for the Death World terrain before my opponent fired a shot.

GSC: Mostly Acolytes hanging back and taking objectives while Abberants, neophyte hybrids, and Pure-Strains get to a spot where I can't see/fire and charge from there. Problem is, the games I've had with them have been grab x objectives by end of game. If I try to sit still, they come around and charge from a point where I can't see. If I move, I get charged sooner.

Also, fall back doesn't prevent them from charging someone else. That happened last game.

Yes it does. If a model starts the turn within 1" of another then the only action choic3s th3y have are to stay still or to fall back. They can't make a normal move and you can only charge I stead of a normal move. Might want to re-read the rules to see if you've missed anythi g else!

 Flinty wrote:
Yes it does. If a model starts the turn within 1" of another then the only action choic3s th3y have are to stay still or to fall back. They can't make a normal move and you can only charge I stead of a normal move. Might want to re-read the rules to see if you've missed anythi g else!

And because someone will argue...

P22: When you pick a model to move, if that model started the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy model, it cannot make a normal move. Instead, it can either remain stationary or FallBack.

And from the designer's commentary:
Q: If a model Falls Back from one of my models, can my model declare a charge against them when it is my turn to act in that phase?
A: No. Your model was within 1" of an enemy model at the beginning of the phase, so it can only remain stationary or Fall Back (but this move doesn’t have to be ‘backwards’).

Well referenced, sir. I got lazy

You nearly quoted the book verbatim but everyone seems to argue this one...

It is thoroughly counter-intuitive and I'm not really sure why the rules are like this. To be effective in melee you need to be killing opponents in one round which is fairly random in KT regardless of melee capabilities. It's a major negative to melee armies, especially since high-D melee weapons are particularly rare.

Fair point, but equally if there was no downside to CC then I think that's just what every game would devolve to given the small size of the board.

It would suck if the only way to get out of melee was to tarpit. Some sort of middle ground or an increase to melee lethality is called for, I think.

Possibly just an extra +1 to injury rolls in melee? Or the ability to make a normal move so although you can't fight again you can at least try to move in a useful way instead of just standing there?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
ossibly just an extra +1 to injury rolls in melee?

This is already largely the case. Since melee doesn't have the -1 to Injury rolls from shooting obscured targets (which should be absolutely every shot target).

Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies. Shooty armies still have a chance if they manage to go second.

In any case, suggestions on what to bring next time? I don't mind clearing out my roster and starting from scratch.

Then next time bring something other than a guard team if you are.going to be deliberately.favouring CC. Tyrannids?

 Flinty wrote:
Then next time bring something other than a guard team if you are.going to be deliberately.favouring CC. Tyrannids?

Well, one GSC player suggested I bring Plasma spam and regular Guardsmen instead of Scions, as Scions have shorter range weapons.

Here's what I've got as a plan:


++ Kill Team List (Astra Militarum) [122pts] ++

+ Configuration +

List Configuration: Campaign: Kill Team

+ Leader +

Sergeant [5pts]: Chainsword, Display Voice of Command Orders, Laspistol, Leader

+ Specialists +

Guardsman [10pts]: Comms, Vox Caster

Scion Gunner [13pts]: Heavy, Plasma gun

Scion Gunner [21pts]: Plasma gun
. Sniper: Level 2: Sharpshooter, Level 3: Eagle-eye

+ Non-specialists +

Infantry Squad Fire Team [23pts]
. Guardsman
. Guardsman
. Guardsman
. Guardsman Gunner: Plasma gun

Militarum Tempestus Fire Team [26pts]
. Scion Gunner: Plasma gun
. Scion Gunner: Plasma gun

Special Weapons Squad Fire Team [24pts]
. Special Weapons Gunner: Plasma gun
. Special Weapons Gunner: Plasma gun
. Special Weapons Gunner: Plasma gun

++ Total: [122pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe

I can certainly bring a new Sniper and get two extra Guardsmen.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies

What option? Do they think the rules as written are optional?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies

What option? Do they think the rules as written are optional?

Aren't they though?

I mean I house rule things all the time and rarely do the tabletop gaming police send their S.W.A.T. team after me. If a group of like minded players want to change something like don't like about a game to something closer to what they want they can. They should probably be consider the ramification of it beforehand. It is one of the main reasons like prefer tabletop to video games.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies

What option? Do they think the rules as written are optional?

Following the wording of the Charge rules rather than the wording of Falling Back. EG: I go first and fall back, you can charge as you started outside of 1" of me.

Our reasoning is that it hurts melee armies more to be stuck out in the open if the person falling back moved first than it hurts shooty armies to be charged again. Shooty armies still can get an opponent out in the open if they move second. Shooty players *may* also get overwatch, depending on the situation.

In summary, we recognized there wasn't a good way for the rules to benefit both shooty and melee armies, and we felt allowing normal move/charge to a unit in melee if the opponent falls back was the least worst scenario. Shooty armies have *some* (albiet few) ways around this, but melee armies wouldn't have a way around getting stuck out in the open beyond consistently insta-killing whatever they charge.

In any case, I was hoping to get some advice with my list. If we really want to talk about the whole melee charge versus fall back, we can open a new thread.

Arcanis161 wrote:
AdMech game was a fluke; lost half of my team due to the "There's something on me!" Environmental effect for the Death World terrain before my opponent fired a shot.

GSC: Mostly Acolytes hanging back and taking objectives while Abberants, neophyte hybrids, and Pure-Strains get to a spot where I can't see/fire and charge from there. Problem is, the games I've had with them have been grab x objectives by end of game. If I try to sit still, they come around and charge from a point where I can't see. If I move, I get charged sooner.

What sort of terrain are you guys using? It's normally pretty hard to hide people completely, especially from more than one vantage point and when you take elevation into account. Obscured, sure (generally everyone is obscured), but staying completely hidden without even a sliver being visible through a door or window is a lot harder to achieve. Even more so with multiple models that need to get pretty close before charging (since they'll have to go around terrain and take a 3" fall back response into account).

As for the generic guardsmen vs generic scions, I'd go for the guardsmen. The longer range and more bodies outweighs the better AP when fighting GSC, at least for me. Obviously the +1 to hit can be handy on the guys with the big guns, though.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies

What option? Do they think the rules as written are optional?

Aren't they though?

I mean I house rule things all the time and rarely do the tabletop gaming police send their S.W.A.T. team after me. If a group of like minded players want to change something like don't like about a game to something closer to what they want they can. They should probably be consider the ramification of it beforehand. It is one of the main reasons like prefer tabletop to video games.

Why bother discussing strategy in a game with no rules? Just say your guns are rapid fire 100, Str a miillion, and instantly win you the game.

 Trimarius wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
AdMech game was a fluke; lost half of my team due to the "There's something on me!" Environmental effect for the Death World terrain before my opponent fired a shot.

GSC: Mostly Acolytes hanging back and taking objectives while Abberants, neophyte hybrids, and Pure-Strains get to a spot where I can't see/fire and charge from there. Problem is, the games I've had with them have been grab x objectives by end of game. If I try to sit still, they come around and charge from a point where I can't see. If I move, I get charged sooner.

What sort of terrain are you guys using? It's normally pretty hard to hide people completely, especially from more than one vantage point and when you take elevation into account. Obscured, sure (generally everyone is obscured), but staying completely hidden without even a sliver being visible through a door or window is a lot harder to achieve. Even more so with multiple models that need to get pretty close before charging (since they'll have to go around terrain and take a 3" fall back response into account).

As for the generic guardsmen vs generic scions, I'd go for the guardsmen. The longer range and more bodies outweighs the better AP when fighting GSC, at least for me. Obviously the +1 to hit can be handy on the guys with the big guns, though.

Sector Munitorum. Getting at a high vantage point will help, but often times I try to position myself either to try and grab an objective or to shoot at something. If I fall back, I can't shoot, ant it takes me longer to get to the objective, and often times, they are charging from between 7-9 inches away. Perhaps I should start falling back regardless. Better to get a shot/objective later than to risk being dead now.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies

What option? Do they think the rules as written are optional?

Aren't they though?

I mean I house rule things all the time and rarely do the tabletop gaming police send their S.W.A.T. team after me. If a group of like minded players want to change something like don't like about a game to something closer to what they want they can. They should probably be consider the ramification of it beforehand. It is one of the main reasons like prefer tabletop to video games.

Why bother discussing strategy in a game with no rules? Just say your guns are rapid fire 100, Str a miillion, and instantly win you the game.

No-one except you is discussing a game with no rules. However, changing the rules by mutual consent is perfectly valid, as is discussing the consequences of those sorts of changes .
If you think it would be a better game with those rues changes you propose, bring it up with your friends. Personally, I'd have concerns - Rolling 100D6 and picking out the hits is likely to be overly time-consuming. And if they "instantly win me the game", what relevance is their number of shots or Strength?

Arcanis161 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Discussed it with the group. They want to go with the option that is better for Melee armies

What option? Do they think the rules as written are optional?

Following the wording of the Charge rules rather than the wording of Falling Back. EG: I go first and fall back, you can charge as you started outside of 1" of me.

[Snipped]
.

I would again point you to p22 where it makes clear that any model within 1" of an enemy model at the start of the movement phase cannot charge. This isn't the start of the specific model's movement, but the start of the whole phase. Ergo, if the person with initiative retreats out of combat then the other model is left swinging in the breeze and hence CC can be a risky proposition.