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.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. So I'm not totally opposed to it, but it seems to me that the most notorious lists don't care about their chapter tactics nearly as much as they care about certain stratagems, the innate statlines of certain units/weapons, or specific special abilities.

Like, a Castellan is good because stratagems allow it to be super durable and to bump up its damage output. Ynnari (who don't even have chapter tactics in the ynnari part of the army) are good because of Soulbursts.

Sure, BA smash captains are especially good because of their +1 to wound, and Alaitoc is kind of notorious, but I'm not sure chapter tactic equivalents are really at the heart of the most problematic competitive lists. Perhaps I"m mistaken?

Chapter tactics are not well-balanced against one another, but ignoring them during competitive play doesn't seem like it really addresses the main balance issues present in most armies either.

Slamguinus works because of his Strategems. The +1 to wound is merely the cherry on top.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Hmm. So I'm not totally opposed to it, but it seems to me that the most notorious lists don't care about their chapter tactics nearly as much as they care about certain stratagems, the innate statlines of certain units/weapons, or specific special abilities.

Like, a Castellan is good because stratagems allow it to be super durable and to bump up its damage output. Ynnari (who don't even have chapter tactics in the ynnari part of the army) are good because of Soulbursts.

Sure, BA smash captains are especially good because of their +1 to wound, and Alaitoc is kind of notorious, but I'm not sure chapter tactic equivalents are really at the heart of the most problematic competitive lists. Perhaps I"m mistaken?

Chapter tactics are not well-balanced against one another, but ignoring them during competitive play doesn't seem like it really addresses the main balance issues present in most armies either.

Slamguinus works because of his Strategems. The +1 to wound is merely the cherry on top.

Exactly my point.

Why not try no stratagems, or only one use?

Matched play already has restrictions on them. Maybe they need to be harder.

 Blndmage wrote:
Why not try no stratagems, or only one use?

Matched play already has restrictions on them. Maybe they need to be harder.

Several stratagems already have that caveat and several of them are expensive enough you won't use them more than twice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Why not try no stratagems, or only one use?

Matched play already has restrictions on them. Maybe they need to be harder.

Several stratagems already have that caveat and several of them are expensive enough you won't use them more than twice.

What about no stratagems, aside from the corebook ones?

Have fun playing Daemons without any Deep Striking. I know I wouldn't.

 skchsan wrote:
8th ed was most balanced during index times.

I don't mind dumbing the game down for organized events for the sake of balance.

Come on, 8th edition index was the worst edition ever. AM was extremely overpowered in comparison to other armies... drukhari, orks, space wolves absolutely unplayable.

Factions traits are among the best things of this edition.

Just ban the soups in matched play if you want more balance. The 2-3 current top tier armies are all soups.

 Blackie wrote:
Just ban the soups in matched play if you want more balance. The 2-3 current top tier armies are all soups.

This works for me too, but just for Organized events. Along with the Rule of 3, GW could "suggest" that armies in Organized event have to follow the same rules as detachments in Matched Play.

That is, all models in your ARMY must share at least 1 Keyword that isn't IMPERIUM, CHAO, AELDARI, YNNARI or TYRANID for Organized events.
You could, of course, have a list of Keywords that can be included without breaking this, such as:
INQUISITOR, ASSASSIN, FALLEN, TRIARCH etc so that those few units that wouldn't be able to be added are exempt form this "suggestion"

That would fix Soup overnight, for tournaments anyway.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Just ban the soups in matched play if you want more balance. The 2-3 current top tier armies are all soups.

This works for me too, but just for Organized events. Along with the Rule of 3, GW could "suggest" that armies in Organized event have to follow the same rules as detachments in Matched Play.

That is, all models in your ARMY must share at least 1 Keyword that isn't IMPERIUM, CHAO, AELDARI, YNNARI or TYRANID for Organized events.
You could, of course, have a list of Keywords that can be included without breaking this, such as:
INQUISITOR, ASSASSIN, FALLEN, TRIARCH etc so that those few units that wouldn't be able to be added are exempt form this "suggestion"

That would fix Soup overnight, for tournaments anyway.

-

Once again, the issue is overpowered units, not the fact you can bring them into your army.

It doesn't matter if I can't bring in Infantry squads into my Deathwatch as long as they're powerful enough as they are. Then you have abilities that are designed for allies in mind or even entire armies.

If you have good internal and external balance, the problem of allies disappears, rather than the allies disappearing themselves.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you have good internal and external balance, the problem of allies disappears, rather than the allies disappearing themselves.

I totally agree. The issue is that GW refuses to, or is incapable of, addressing those balances with so many variances present.
So failing good internal/external balance being accessible, the next best option would be to "remove" Allies from Organized, Matched Play events.

But I am not even suggesting we remove allies entirely, just limit what can be allies.
Ultra Marines + Blood angels? Go ahead, they still share the Astates keyword
Death Guard + Thousand Sons? Same as above

Knights with Guard, however, would not be allowed, nor would CWE + DE + Ynnari. And these are currently the biggest Soup offenders, so the blanket fix works
And I also noted that special edge cases, like Inquisitors, Assassins, etc would still be allowed to use Imperium to ally in the ARMY, but still need a separate detachment

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you have good internal and external balance, the problem of allies disappears, rather than the allies disappearing themselves.

I totally agree. The issue is that GW refuses to, or is incapable of, addressing those balances with so many variances present.
So failing good internal/external balance being accessible, the next best option would be to "remove" Allies from Organized, Matched Play events.

But I am not even suggesting we remove allies entirely, just limit what can be allies.
Ultra Marines + Blood angels? Go ahead, they still share the Astates keyword
Death Guard + Thousand Sons? Same as above

Knights with Guard, however, would not be allowed, nor would CWE + DE + Ynnari. And these are currently the biggest Soup offenders, so the blanket fix works
And I also noted that special edge cases, like Inquisitors, Assassins, etc would still be allowed to use Imperium to ally in the ARMY, but still need a separate detachment

-

It doesn't matter if GW is incapable of answering those issues. This is our Proposed Rules subforum, not theirs.

You give me a week and I'll not only consolidate the Angels, I'll make the internal/external balance not so bad.

I guess I was proposing a rule with "what GW could probably do" in mind.
Sweeping "every faction" changes aren't going to happen unless GW decides to scrap 8E and start again with 9E. That isn't going to happen

We have CA for points changes and FAQ/Erratas for rules changes/updates.
But even those aren't going to massively address internal/external balance issues. But what GW has done well, it small tweaks that effect certain styles of play or certain specific units.

Overall, I really like this approach. But for certain issues (like Soup) we need a bigger change, even if it only affect a subset of players.
Removing Soup from tourneys allows other factions to shine.

-

I also agree that internal balance would solve any issue but internal balance means re-write lots of rules and profiles in each codex. Yes it's the perfect solution, but it never gonna happen.

There's no FAQ, CA or other stuff that can give us internal balance, only a massive re-write of all the codexes, or most of them.

A single house rule that isn't the perfect solution but is simple to apply like the soups' ban is way more realistic. In fact I use that house rule many times with my competitive group of friends (if I play a totally casual game I don't mind soups) and it works very well.

Some very minor factions like deathwatch could struggle without allies but their problem is that they should have never been a stand alone faction, but just part of bigger codex. Or maybe armies that are designed for small games, like kill team, not regular 2000 points 40k games.

Some books should be merged, other ones should remain separate and impossible to mix up. Define what codexes should be part of the same faction and then eliminate the soup.

Basically:

SM of all kinds
AM
IK + Ad mech
Sisters, grey knights, inquisition, custodes... basically anything that looks like sci-fi crusaders.
CWE
Drukhari + Harlies
Chaos of all kinds
Tyranids + Gen cult
Tau
Orks
Necrons

Removing the soup from competitive game isn't the perfect solution but grants a way more balanced unverse.

And the best part is, GW have already added a rule like this with the specific keywords needed, but just on Detachments.
Battle Brothers specifically disallows mixing units in detachments based on 5 keywords: IMPERIUM, CHAOS, AELDARI, YNNARI & TYRANID.

GW can very realistically apply Battle Brothers to ARMIES for Organized play as well. But they still won't, best they don't care about Soup.

-

 Blackie wrote:
I also agree that internal balance would solve any issue but internal balance means re-write lots of rules and profiles in each codex. Yes it's the perfect solution, but it never gonna happen.

There's no FAQ, CA or other stuff that can give us internal balance, only a massive re-write of all the codexes, or most of them.

A single house rule that isn't the perfect solution but is simple to apply like the soups' ban is way more realistic. In fact I use that house rule many times with my competitive group of friends (if I play a totally casual game I don't mind soups) and it works very well.

Some very minor factions like deathwatch could struggle without allies but their problem is that they should have never been a stand alone faction, but just part of bigger codex. Or maybe armies that are designed for small games, like kill team, not regular 2000 points 40k games.

Some books should be merged, other ones should remain separate and impossible to mix up. Define what codexes should be part of the same faction and then eliminate the soup.

Basically:

SM of all kinds
AM
IK + Ad mech
Sisters, grey knights, inquisition, custodes... basically anything that looks like sci-fi crusaders.
CWE
Drukhari + Harlies
Chaos of all kinds
Tyranids + Gen cult
Tau
Orks
Necrons

Removing the soup from competitive game isn't the perfect solution but grants a way more balanced unverse.

So because it's slightly more work GW should be lazy?

No. If units need a total rewrite, they NEED a total rewrite. You don't simply say "too much work". You don't get that in a 9-5 job, and you shouldn't get it just because you're at GW.

Also I feel like your separation of codices is wrong. It should be more along the lines of:
1. Space Marines (consolidated Angels + Renegades)
2. Space Wolves
3. Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle, and Inquisition
4. Custodes + Sisters of Silence
5. Death Guard
6. Thousand Sons
7. World Eaters
8. Emperor's Children
9. Chaos Legions
10. Chaos Daemons
11. Imperial Guard
12. AdMech + Knights
13. Tyranids
14. Genestealer Cults
15. Eldar
16. Dark Eldar
17. Harlequins
18. Necrons
19. Orks
20. Tau

This cuts some of the bloat whilst keeping the variety. I want to consolidate Death Guard and Thousand Sons, but they added WAY too many units like they did to Space Wolves, and we all know they'll do the same to the other two Cult Legions. Of course if you wanted me to, I would find ways to make sure they get thrown in without taking out everything (and of course it seems silly that they don't have access to units like Obliterators.

The problem with the level of rewrites "needed" has less to do with how much work it would be, and FAR more to do with how much money they would lose in producing that many books for players that JUST updated their ruleset.
Starting over twice in 2 yrs is not a good way to market your product. GW knows this. They risked it going from 7E to 8E, but were likely planning it for years before.

So you'll have to excuse me if I try to propose rules that might actually come to fruition and have merit in discussing their implications on the game as it stands, rather than come up with an idea that involves fairy dust and unicorn blood for it to actually happen

-

 Galef wrote:
The problem with the level of rewrites "needed" has less to do with how much work it would be, and FAR more to do with how much money they would lose in producing that many books for players that JUST updated their ruleset.
Starting over twice in 2 yrs is not a good way to market your product. GW knows this. They risked it going from 7E to 8E, but were likely planning it for years before.

So you'll have to excuse me if I try to propose rules that might actually come to fruition and have merit in discussing their implications on the game as it stands, rather than come up with an idea that involves fairy dust and unicorn blood for it to actually happen

-

Then you're in the wrong subforum, because this isn't the "GW asks for advice" subforum.

Even if the rules will NEVER happen, because obviously they won't come here, it's all about what YOU think would be cool or make the game better.

 Galef wrote:
So it seems GW is having a really hard time giving units decent points cost. A unit is either trash no matter what, or god-mode with trait X

Which is kinda why I am starting to think Chapter tactic/Legion traits should be moved to Narrative/Open play only.
You can still be Raven Guard/Alpha Legion for the keywords, strats and relics in Matched Play, but if you want that -1 to be hit, you have to play Narrative.

I mean, your specific fluffy trait should only really apply if you are forging a Narrative, so taking it out of Matched play entirely could allow for more balanced points costs in CA2019.

Thoughts?

I don't think this is the problem...

More time should be invested for play testing. Rules should be given to the community free of charge, open play testing should exists 24/7 365 and changes should be logged on some sort of open basis.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Blackie wrote:
I also agree that internal balance would solve any issue but internal balance means re-write lots of rules and profiles in each codex. Yes it's the perfect solution, but it never gonna happen.

There's no FAQ, CA or other stuff that can give us internal balance, only a massive re-write of all the codexes, or most of them.

A single house rule that isn't the perfect solution but is simple to apply like the soups' ban is way more realistic. In fact I use that house rule many times with my competitive group of friends (if I play a totally casual game I don't mind soups) and it works very well.

Some very minor factions like deathwatch could struggle without allies but their problem is that they should have never been a stand alone faction, but just part of bigger codex. Or maybe armies that are designed for small games, like kill team, not regular 2000 points 40k games.

Some books should be merged, other ones should remain separate and impossible to mix up. Define what codexes should be part of the same faction and then eliminate the soup.

Basically:

SM of all kinds
AM
IK + Ad mech
Sisters, grey knights, inquisition, custodes... basically anything that looks like sci-fi crusaders.
CWE
Drukhari + Harlies
Chaos of all kinds
Tyranids + Gen cult
Tau
Orks
Necrons

Removing the soup from competitive game isn't the perfect solution but grants a way more balanced unverse.

So because it's slightly more work GW should be lazy?

No. If units need a total rewrite, they NEED a total rewrite. You don't simply say "too much work". You don't get that in a 9-5 job, and you shouldn't get it just because you're at GW.

Also I feel like your separation of codices is wrong. It should be more along the lines of:
1. Space Marines (consolidated Angels + Renegades)
2. Space Wolves
3. Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle, and Inquisition
4. Custodes + Sisters of Silence
5. Death Guard
6. Thousand Sons
7. World Eaters
8. Emperor's Children
9. Chaos Legions
10. Chaos Daemons
11. Imperial Guard
12. AdMech + Knights
13. Tyranids
14. Genestealer Cults
15. Eldar
16. Dark Eldar
17. Harlequins
18. Necrons
19. Orks
20. Tau

This cuts some of the bloat whilst keeping the variety. I want to consolidate Death Guard and Thousand Sons, but they added WAY too many units like they did to Space Wolves, and we all know they'll do the same to the other two Cult Legions. Of course if you wanted me to, I would find ways to make sure they get thrown in without taking out everything (and of course it seems silly that they don't have access to units like Obliterators.

I basically agree, I think you listed too many chaos factions and missed blood angels but it's ok. Harlequins with just 8 entries shouldn't be a stand alone faction IMHO.

I get that a re-write should be the perfect solution, but also a simple imperfect but immediate solution could work. It won't make the game perfect but it's an effective hint to players that can have a lot of fun basically playing by the rulebook without investing much time in house ruling and learning the new rules, or codex profiles that were re-written by someone.

I don't think it's a matter of too much work for GW, I think GW keeps on purpose the game slightly unbalanced because they think they would sell more this way. Not a complete mess, non even perfectly balanced, just balanced enough to let the players enjoy the game but also force them to buy new stuff periodically. That's the current state of 40k. With a perfect balanced game I fear many players would be ok with their 2500 points collection for years, which isn't something that GW wants. That's why other that wishing something that will never happen or a total re-write of the game I'd suggest a few simple limitations and house rules that could improve the quality of gaming by a lot without much effort.

If you have the time to re-write all the codexes and you actually find someone that is interested in your personal version of 40k good for you.

Like I said, consolidation of Death Guard and Thousand Sons is more complex now because of how many units they were given, especially compared to Dark and Blood Angels.

Also I couldn't imagine anyone interested in a personal variation. Most people wouldn't be, yet we come into this subforum anyway.

Well there are people that are willing to accept a few house rules in order to get a more balanced but still competitive game. A large part of my group agrees in banning the soups unless it's open play with highly tailored lists just for the fun for having a narrative game.

There are even people that use the alternate activation system.

But getting deeper, with a better internal balance between the codex is a different matter, you're absolutely right about that, very few people would be interested in a personal variation.

This is what I'd like to see the codices be:

1. Space Marines
2. Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Sisters Of Battle, and Inquisition
3. Custodes + Sisters of Silence
4. Chaos Space Marines
5. Chaos Daemons
6: Renegades and Heretics
7. Imperial Guard
8. AdMech + Knights
9. Tyranids
10. Genestealer Cults
11. Eldar
12. Dark Eldar
13. Harlequins
14: Corsairs
15. Necrons
16. Orks
17. Tau (And Aux)

All Marine armies can be put into 2 books with proper representation through unique legion units, with the exception of DW and GK. They should start with this, and then balance outward.

Soup should be fixed by making detachments cost CP (Which fixes a few other things), and good internal balance.

Faction Traits do not need to be limited for matched play/organized play, it'd just limit variety in lists even more.

Corsairs, Harlies, and Ynnari (if not removed) could be combined much like Deathwatch, GK, SoB, Inq are.

Bharring wrote:
Corsairs, Harlies, and Ynnari (if not removed) could be combined much like Deathwatch, GK, SoB, Inq are.

Agreed. Ynnari shouldn't be a faction at all. Just 3 Characters that can be added to any AELDARI list

Bharring wrote:
Corsairs, Harlies, and Ynnari (if not removed) could be combined much like Deathwatch, GK, SoB, Inq are.

I hadn't considered Corsairs as that's more a FW project. I'd wager they stay in their own army list, separate from Harlequins.

The Ynnari characters are a whole other issue. Stuff needs a rewrite entirely to the point I do think they might need to be in their own Codex. It's either that, or you add the Characters to the Dark Eldar/Eldar/Harlequins codices (ya know, if you wanted those armies solo as Ynnari), and you include the Ynnari "trait" there as well? I dunno, just spitballing ideas.

In theory, you could:
Both Corsairs and Harlies have far too few options to really be their own list. I could see a Corsairs/Harlies/Ynnari book, but they'd have to be usable with CWE or DE books.

Bharring wrote:
In theory, you could:
Both Corsairs and Harlies have far too few options to really be their own list. I could see a Corsairs/Harlies/Ynnari book, but they'd have to be usable with CWE or DE books.

Harlequins theoretically have most of the tools they need, actually. Mimes for Infiltration and screening would basically give them every tool.

So do Aspect Warriors. Or Spirit Hosts. Or SM Scout Companies. Kabals, Cults, and Covens. GKs. Custodes. Knights. Where do you draw the line?

Bharring wrote:
So do Aspect Warriors. Or Spirit Hosts. Or SM Scout Companies. Kabals, Cults, and Covens. GKs. Custodes. Knights. Where do you draw the line?

Exactly my point in another thread. But for some reason I couldn't give better examples. Aspect Host, Wraithhost, Wildrider clans are perfect examples
As are all 3 of the main DE subfactions.
Why do Harlies, a subfaction of Aeldari with LESS different units than those mentioned above, merit a stand alone Codex, but the others don't
It's inconsistent. But it seems GW is moving toward each mini-faction getting there own book, so it's the direct we have to live with.

-

Bharring wrote:
So do Aspect Warriors. Or Spirit Hosts. Or SM Scout Companies. Kabals, Cults, and Covens. GKs. Custodes. Knights. Where do you draw the line?

It's basically a line that needs to be played by ear.

Custodes for example didn't need to be a codex, BUT the Talons FW book will give them the things they lacked as a full fledged force. Harlequins meanwhile received a few kits and basically were given all the tools they needed to be a glass cannon force, terribly similar to Dark Eldar in certain ways but still.

Meanwhile, I'm sure we can all agree that the "codex" releases for Legion Of The Damned and Assassins in the previous edition were total misfires and had no reason to exist outside of it being a cheaper codex to get those specific allies if you wanted them.