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.
This is speaking to the difference between Army Balance and Faction Balance.
Armies are Archetypes (e.g. World Eaters are an "Assault Army"). Factions are not.
If you are building an army list to win games, it is important to have the options to cover every base. This can either be achieved through Generalists x100, or by mixing a bunch of specialists together (e.g. Assault Specialist x33, Buff Specialist x33, Shoot Specialist x33 or whatever).
Since it is easier to play a specialist with 1 job than to play a generalist who is bad at many, players tend to opt to take armies of mixed specialists, rather than unique generalists.
A Smashcaptain, a Castellan, and the Loyal 32 are a mix of Assault Specialist, Shooty Specialist, and Durability Specialist/Buff Specialist armies. Each "army" within the "faction" has a specialization (Blood Angels bring concentrated Melee power, Knights bring concentrated shooty power, and Guard bring durability and access to buffs through Stratagems). But the "faction" is a generalist one (the Imperium).
That's fair. I don't think that generalists or multipurpose units are unworkable concept, but GW often seems to overvalue their effectiveness when assigning the point costs. The marine problem, basically.
Well, the problem at its core (and this is a HUGE PROBLEM to which I have no solution) is that a generalist should rightfully never be better at a specific job than a specialist.
Tac Marines should never ever out-melee Shining Scorpions, and should barely be able to go toe-to-toe with Kroot in Melee (only because the Tau archetype is bad at Melee). This is because the Marines do out-shoot and out-durability those same units. Tac Marines should never ever out-shoot Guardian Defenders, and should only be able to go toe-to-toe at best with Adepta Sororitas. This is because the Marines do out-melee and out-durability those same units. Tac Marines should never out-durability Custodes or Plague Marines, etc. etc.
All you end up with is an army that says "well, my melee specialist is Custodes bike captains, my durability specialist is a million guardsmen, and my shooty specialist is a House Raven Castellan" or whatever, because it's easier to play specialists than generalists.
The problem is, this game is bland. If the question: "I'm playing World Eaters, should I buy Chaos Space Marines" is "meh, doesn't matter, each unit is viable" then the difference between World Eaters and Black Legion is basically zilch.
The answer shouldn't be 'meh, it doesn't matter' it should be 'it depends on the playstyle you prefer.' That the units need to be used differently doesn't mean that one of them needs to be just plain worse.
The problem is that playstyle should define your army choice. Not every army should be able to support every playstyle. If you want to run a gunline-heavy super-shooty army, you shouldn't play World Eaters. Similarly, if you want to play assault specialists, don't pick Tau.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Running a foot horde of guardsmen from Armageddon should be outright worse than running a mechanized regiment, for example.
Why?
Because armies (and army traits) should be what defines them. If the difference between Armageddon and Cadia for example is "IDKLOL" then that's a blander game than we have now.
I disagree with your second premise, though, because 8 out of 10 entries may be garbage from the gameplay perspective but amazing from a fluff or aesthetics perspective. I can't speak to player retention (40k manages somehow it seems?) but "fun gameplay" is ... well, subjective. I can have fun with garbage units on the table.
But wouldn't it still be better if they weren't garbage from the gameplay perspective either? What purpose does them being rubbish serve?
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 15:14:45
No because world eaters are a subset of chaos space marines. They are a type of chaos space marine in a book written to represent all of the "legions".
However if there was a world eaters codex, I'd say yes, they have no use for havocs because no one will ever take them.
Now if in a generic CSM list no one bothers with havocs because they are just garbage period I'd be for their removal then as well if GW can't get their act together to make them worth taking.
Army's playstyle is defined by its units. A melee focused army might have a large selection of melee units to perform different roles and only some ranged units. But those ranged units shouldn't be just straight out worse than similar units in a shooty army. This is the Kroot example again (except in reverse.) Trap choices are bad, intentionally making them is terrible game design.
(Also, I think it is absurdly limited view of Khorne to think he would care whether his followers kill the enemies by axes or heavy bolters.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 15:35:11
auticus wrote:No because world eaters are a subset of chaos space marines. They are a type of chaos space marine in a book written to represent all of the "legions".
However if there was a world eaters codex, I'd say yes, they have no use for havocs because no one will ever take them.
Now if in a generic CSM list no one bothers with havocs because they are just garbage period I'd be for their removal then as well if GW can't get their act together to make them worth taking.
This is a problem, though, because World Eaters really should be able to take some Havocs in their warbands, from a fluff perspective. The old Legion had them, if doing a pre-Kharn's Betrayal fluff army, and current World Eaters lords can certainly hire/abduct/raise/own/compel their own Havocs from someone else. If someone wants to play a World Eaters warband, and also have a Havoc squad in their army, they should not be forced to soup, even if World Eaters had their own codex. People have all sorts of reasons to run units, everything from aesthetics to paint schemes to army backgrounds to more besides, and "gameplay reasons" is not the only governing one for someone somewhere, surely?
Crimson wrote:Army's playstyle is defined by its units. A melee focused army might have a large selection of melee units to perform different roles and only some ranged units. But those ranged units shouldn't be just straight out worse than similar units in a shooty army. This is the Kroot example again (except in reverse.) Trap choices are bad, intentionally making them is terrible game design.
This is false. An army's playstyle is defined by its units, but also its army trait, stratagems, and warlord traits.
And why shouldn't a melee army's shooting options be straight out worse than a similar unit in a shooting army? If the difference between, say, Tau battlesuits and Black Templars devastators is basically negligible (and you turn around and say a shooting army's melee units shouldn't automatically be worse than a melee army's melee units, which is the natural converse of your statement), then the difference between, say, a Black Templars Crusader Squad and Kroot is also basically negligible.
That doesn't make sense to me, from an army identity perspective. If a shooty army's melee units aren't significantly less powerful than a melee army's melee units, and visa-versa for shooting, then you might as well just strip army identities out entirely.
EDIT: *Shrug* I didn't write the World Eater's identity as an assault army, that's GW's doing. You could instead write the Death Guard as the assault army, emphasizing not their toughness but rather their virulence, and have written World Eaters as a shooting army. You can justify what ever you like. My greater point is that:
"Armies have identities. Tau are shooting, World Eaters are melee, as examples. If you say that World Eaters should shoot about as well as Tau, and Tau should punch about as well as World Eaters, then I disagree with you because that is bland and uninteresting."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 15:42:14
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
Their is a difference between sub optimal, like a unit of havocs in an army who legion bonus is reroll charge distance or +1 attack on the charge. But they arn't exactlly worse baseline, (more points) than say Iron warrios havocs who might get ignore cover and +1 to wound against buildings as a legion bonus.
The iron warriors will probably do more damage but id your havocs in your world eaters army can clear a path for your bezerkers who are better they have contributed in a way that overcosting them would prevent.
There is a line between a sub optimal choice and a ("garbage") choice.
This is false. An army's playstyle is defined by its units, but also its army trait, stratagems, and warlord traits.
Sure. And powerful free army traits are actually a balancing problem. In fair game only units that benefitted from the armytait would pay for it, but that would probably be too annoying to keep track of.
And why shouldn't a melee army's shooting options be straight out worse than a similar unit in a shooting army?
Because then there's no point in taking it!
If the difference between, say, Tau battlesuits and Black Templars devastators is basically negligible (and you turn around and say a shooting army's melee units shouldn't automatically be worse than a melee army's melee units, which is the natural converse of your statement), then the difference between, say, a Black Templars Crusader Squad and Kroot is also basically negligible.
Yes. Though I'd expect the Crusaders to be more powerful and more versatile, but also pay commensurate amount of points for it.
That doesn't make sense to me, from an army identity perspective. If a shooty army's melee units aren't significantly less powerful than a melee army's melee units, and visa-versa for shooting, then you might as well just strip army identities out entirely.
It's like this. The Tau have like that one melee unit. That melee unit can only really deal with light infantry and dies in a stiff breeze. So it is not like they can resolve many problems with that unit. For most things they need to use shooty solutions, and that defines the playstyle. But for that one role (cheap melee chaff) their melee unit should be equally good than a unit with similar role in more melee oriented army. TL;DR, if you put in the codex, it needs to be worth taking, at least in limited amounts.
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
Their is a difference between sub optimal, like a unit of havocs in an army who legion bonus is reroll charge distance or +1 attack on the charge. But they arn't exactlly worse baseline, (more points) than say Iron warrios havocs who might get ignore cover and +1 to wound against buildings as a legion bonus.
The iron warriors will probably do more damage but id your havocs in your world eaters army can clear a path for your bezerkers who are better they have contributed in a way that overcosting them would prevent.
There is a line between a sub optimal choice and a ("garbage") choice.
Not in competitive play there's not.
Look at some of the threads on DakkaDakka. Something is either "competitive" or it is "unusable." If you go into the CSM Tactics Thread with a post titled "how to make World Eaters Havocs work?" people will be like and then tell you not to do it.
It's the same answer I get (and anyone gets) every time I (they) ask a question based on fluff.
This is false. An army's playstyle is defined by its units, but also its army trait, stratagems, and warlord traits.
Sure. And powerful free army traits are actually a balancing problem. In fair game only units that benefitted from the armytait would pay for it, but that would probably be too annoying to keep track of.
Sure, they could pay for it, that'd be fine, though as you say, a bit fiddly.
If the difference between, say, Tau battlesuits and Black Templars devastators is basically negligible (and you turn around and say a shooting army's melee units shouldn't automatically be worse than a melee army's melee units, which is the natural converse of your statement), then the difference between, say, a Black Templars Crusader Squad and Kroot is also basically negligible.
Yes. Though I'd expect the Crusaders to be more powerful and more versatile, but also pay commensurate amount of points for it.
I agree, but they should still be more efficient point-per-point. Dedicated melee armies should be better at melee than not-dedicated-melee-armies, given equal army sizes at 2000 points. Thusly, dedicated melee armies should have "better points efficiency in melee" than non-dedicated-melee armies. Quod erat demonstrandum.
That doesn't make sense to me, from an army identity perspective. If a shooty army's melee units aren't significantly less powerful than a melee army's melee units, and visa-versa for shooting, then you might as well just strip army identities out entirely.
It's like this. The Tau have like that one melee unit. That melee unit can only really deal with light infantry and dies in a stiff breeze. So it is not like they can resolve many problems with that unit. For most things they need to use shooty solutions, and that defines the playstyle. But for that one role (cheap melee chaff) their melee unit should be equally good than a unit with similar role in more melee oriented army. TL;DR, if you put in the codex, it needs to be worth taking, at least in limited amounts.
No, it shouldn't be. As demonstrated above, specialist armies should be better in their specialization than armies that do not share that specialization, given 2000 points of equity. If 160 points of melee unit in the Tau is as efficient as 160 points of melee unit from the Blood Angels, then that is bland and boring.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 16:00:02
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
Their is a difference between sub optimal, like a unit of havocs in an army who legion bonus is reroll charge distance or +1 attack on the charge. But they arn't exactlly worse baseline, (more points) than say Iron warrios havocs who might get ignore cover and +1 to wound against buildings as a legion bonus.
The iron warriors will probably do more damage but id your havocs in your world eaters army can clear a path for your bezerkers who are better they have contributed in a way that overcosting them would prevent.
There is a line between a sub optimal choice and a ("garbage") choice.
Not in competitive play there's not.
Look at some of the threads on DakkaDakka. Something is either "competitive" or it is "unusable." If you go into the CSM Tactics Thread with a post titled "how to make World Eaters Havocs work?" people will be like and then tell you not to do it.
It's the same answer I get (and anyone gets) every time I (they) ask a question based on fluff.
That's partly to do with their being little to no real reason in 8th edition not to min-max the snot out of everything.
I'll admit I would probably be one of the people telling you that right now your pobably going to have better luck doing the same job with a totally different faction be it a Thousand sons supreme comand detachment or such but that doesn't mean that as some people are advocating that world eaters should have to pay 20 ppm for havocs while iron warrios pay 15.
That woukd guarantee that no-one would ever be able to take world eaters havocs without seriously feeling like they gimped their own army.
This is where it's those bonuses and strategums that add the narative flavour rather than broken unit design.
Just straight up saying well your a blood angel your devistators are 5 points more than codex devistators for the same rules is terrible design.
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
Their is a difference between sub optimal, like a unit of havocs in an army who legion bonus is reroll charge distance or +1 attack on the charge. But they arn't exactlly worse baseline, (more points) than say Iron warrios havocs who might get ignore cover and +1 to wound against buildings as a legion bonus.
The iron warriors will probably do more damage but id your havocs in your world eaters army can clear a path for your bezerkers who are better they have contributed in a way that overcosting them would prevent.
There is a line between a sub optimal choice and a ("garbage") choice.
Not in competitive play there's not.
Look at some of the threads on DakkaDakka. Something is either "competitive" or it is "unusable." If you go into the CSM Tactics Thread with a post titled "how to make World Eaters Havocs work?" people will be like and then tell you not to do it.
It's the same answer I get (and anyone gets) every time I (they) ask a question based on fluff.
That's partly to do with their being little to no real reason in 8th edition not to min-max the snot out of everything.
I'll admit I would probably be one of the people telling you that right now your pobably going to have better luck doing the same job with a totally different faction be it a Thousand sons supreme comand detachment or such but that doesn't mean that as some people are advocating that world eaters should have to pay 20 ppm for havocs while iron warrios pay 15.
That woukd guarantee that no-one would ever be able to take world eaters havocs without seriously feeling like they gimped their own army.
This is where it's those bonuses and strategums that add the narative flavour rather than broken unit design.
Just straight up saying well your a blood angel your devistators are 5 points more than codex devistators for the same rules is terrible design.
Well, yes, they should be the same price, pointswise. But stratagems and army traits absolutely matter - Catachan Leman Russes are demonstrably better than Mordian ones, for most jobs (unless you're only bringing your Leman Russes to overwatch with).
And there's never ever been a reason not to min-max. Indeed, min-maxing in general has been a problem in Warhammer since its inception. Competitive play is always going to minimize what is bad in their list, and maximize what is good. Fundamentally, that's all min-maxing is. I would argue every game does it to some degree (when was the last time Russians took IS-2 obr 1943s in Flames of War?). It's just a fact. Some things are gonna be worse than other things, and that is okay because part of having differentiation in the game is that some armies are better or worse at something than other armies.
Soup, of course, is going to be the way to build the best army in this situation, just like we're seeing in current 8th edition 40k. That's why I said it is more important to balance faction vs faction than army vs army.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, now you get it. That's the entire point of making them weak, to discourage people from taking them! If you absolutely must have a melee unit in your Tau army you can take one, but it's going to be bad and you probably shouldn't do it.
Then why do they even exist in the first place? Simply remove them and get rid of the false choice. I suspect that if you do this you would only have a handful of units remaining for each army, and the game would be overwhelmingly boring.
This is where I stop taking you seriously. Tau are supposed to be bad generally (army-wide) in melee, not have non-existent melee or be unable to field a dedicated melee unit. They should just be unable to do so in a way that their makes their entire army revolve around those melee units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 16:23:18
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
Their is a difference between sub optimal, like a unit of havocs in an army who legion bonus is reroll charge distance or +1 attack on the charge. But they arn't exactlly worse baseline, (more points) than say Iron warrios havocs who might get ignore cover and +1 to wound against buildings as a legion bonus.
The iron warriors will probably do more damage but id your havocs in your world eaters army can clear a path for your bezerkers who are better they have contributed in a way that overcosting them would prevent.
There is a line between a sub optimal choice and a ("garbage") choice.
Not in competitive play there's not.
Look at some of the threads on DakkaDakka. Something is either "competitive" or it is "unusable." If you go into the CSM Tactics Thread with a post titled "how to make World Eaters Havocs work?" people will be like and then tell you not to do it.
It's the same answer I get (and anyone gets) every time I (they) ask a question based on fluff.
That's partly to do with their being little to no real reason in 8th edition not to min-max the snot out of everything.
I'll admit I would probably be one of the people telling you that right now your pobably going to have better luck doing the same job with a totally different faction be it a Thousand sons supreme comand detachment or such but that doesn't mean that as some people are advocating that world eaters should have to pay 20 ppm for havocs while iron warrios pay 15.
That woukd guarantee that no-one would ever be able to take world eaters havocs without seriously feeling like they gimped their own army.
This is where it's those bonuses and strategums that add the narative flavour rather than broken unit design.
Just straight up saying well your a blood angel your devistators are 5 points more than codex devistators for the same rules is terrible design.
Well, yes, they should be the same price, pointswise. But stratagems and army traits absolutely matter - Catachan Leman Russes are demonstrably better than Mordian ones, for most jobs (unless you're only bringing your Leman Russes to overwatch with).
And there's never ever been a reason not to min-max. Indeed, min-maxing in general has been a problem in Warhammer since its inception. Competitive play is always going to minimize what is bad in their list, and maximize what is good. Fundamentally, that's all min-maxing is. I would argue every game does it to some degree (when was the last time Russians took IS-2 obr 1943s in Flames of War?). It's just a fact. Some things are gonna be worse than other things, and that is okay because part of having differentiation in the game is that some armies are better or worse at something than other armies.
Soup, of course, is going to be the way to build the best army in this situation, just like we're seeing in current 8th edition 40k. That's why I said it is more important to balance faction vs faction than army vs army.
I think we're probably alot closer to agreeing that it might first seam.
I've seen people arguing that Army A having troops at a 20% discount in points is ok because B has a 10% discount on tanks.
To me thats terrible design, you add legion,chaptor tactics or strategums to make army A troops better, army B's tanks better but not game breaking slow. Thats what gives your army flavour not just straight up undercosted or overcosted units as that's insane as a concept to me.
Really I don't think anyone actually believes that the current CP and detachment rules actually work as they should cost you CP but allow you more choice to min-max so it's an actual trade off.
I can have world eaters havocs who are slightly worse or I can take a iron warriors detachment for them and my tanks but cost myself say 5 CP.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 16:23:59
Peregrine wrote: Yes, now you get it. That's the entire point of making them weak, to discourage people from taking them! If you absolutely must have a melee unit in your Tau army you can take one, but it's going to be bad and you probably shouldn't do it.
Then why do they even exist in the first place? Simply remove them and get rid of the false choice. I suspect that if you do this you would only have a handful of units remaining for each army, and the game would be overwhelmingly boring.
The obvious solution is to accept that false choice exists (and isn't even false if your decision making process is more complex than "WHAT IS BEST IN GAME -> TAKE THAT" and not remove anything at all.
This is where I stop taking you seriously. Tau are supposed to be bad generally (army-wide) in melee, not have non-existent melee or be unable to field a dedicated melee unit.
However, if that dedicated melee unit is as good as, say, Black Templars Crusader Squads on a points-efficiency comparison, then simply by allowing Tau to have the unit, then you've allowed them to not be bad in melee army-wide, since you could build an army almost entirely out of that unit alone. Therefore, the melee unit needs to be worse than melee units in other codexes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 16:24:31
The purpose is to give armies unique identities. World Eaters being good at assault automatically makes World Eater havocs a suboptimal ("garbage") choice. Does that mean we should just delete Havocs completely from CSM? Or make World Eaters good at shooting? Good enough that they are either better than or at least indistinguishable from the Iron Warriors Havocs? If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then you just have to accept that suboptimal "garbage" choices are a natural consequence of individuating army identity.
Their is a difference between sub optimal, like a unit of havocs in an army who legion bonus is reroll charge distance or +1 attack on the charge. But they arn't exactlly worse baseline, (more points) than say Iron warrios havocs who might get ignore cover and +1 to wound against buildings as a legion bonus.
The iron warriors will probably do more damage but id your havocs in your world eaters army can clear a path for your bezerkers who are better they have contributed in a way that overcosting them would prevent.
There is a line between a sub optimal choice and a ("garbage") choice.
Not in competitive play there's not.
Look at some of the threads on DakkaDakka. Something is either "competitive" or it is "unusable." If you go into the CSM Tactics Thread with a post titled "how to make World Eaters Havocs work?" people will be like and then tell you not to do it.
It's the same answer I get (and anyone gets) every time I (they) ask a question based on fluff.
That's partly to do with their being little to no real reason in 8th edition not to min-max the snot out of everything.
I'll admit I would probably be one of the people telling you that right now your pobably going to have better luck doing the same job with a totally different faction be it a Thousand sons supreme comand detachment or such but that doesn't mean that as some people are advocating that world eaters should have to pay 20 ppm for havocs while iron warrios pay 15.
That woukd guarantee that no-one would ever be able to take world eaters havocs without seriously feeling like they gimped their own army.
This is where it's those bonuses and strategums that add the narative flavour rather than broken unit design.
Just straight up saying well your a blood angel your devistators are 5 points more than codex devistators for the same rules is terrible design.
Well, yes, they should be the same price, pointswise. But stratagems and army traits absolutely matter - Catachan Leman Russes are demonstrably better than Mordian ones, for most jobs (unless you're only bringing your Leman Russes to overwatch with).
And there's never ever been a reason not to min-max. Indeed, min-maxing in general has been a problem in Warhammer since its inception. Competitive play is always going to minimize what is bad in their list, and maximize what is good. Fundamentally, that's all min-maxing is. I would argue every game does it to some degree (when was the last time Russians took IS-2 obr 1943s in Flames of War?). It's just a fact. Some things are gonna be worse than other things, and that is okay because part of having differentiation in the game is that some armies are better or worse at something than other armies.
Soup, of course, is going to be the way to build the best army in this situation, just like we're seeing in current 8th edition 40k. That's why I said it is more important to balance faction vs faction than army vs army.
I think we're probably alot closer to agreeing that it might first seam.
I've seen people arguing that Army A having troops at a 20% discount in points is ok because B has a 10% discount on tanks.
To me thats terrible design, you add legion,chaptor tactics or strategums to make army A troops better, army B's tanks better but not game breaking slow. Thats what gives your army flavour not just straight up undercosted or overcosted units as that's insane as a concept to me.
Really I don't think anyone actually believes that the current CP and detachment rules actually work as they should cost you CP but allow you more choice to min-max so it's an actual trade off.
I can have world eaters havocs who are slightly worse or I can take a iron warriors detachment for them and my tanks but cost myself say 5 CP.
I think all we disagree on is "scale of difference." It sounds like you're okay with Imperial Guard tanks being better than Space Marine Predators on a points-efficiency comparison, just not to a drastic degree, if I am reading you correctly. Of course, since points-efficiency is the measure of a unit's ingame utility at performing a given task, then that does mean that a better tank also "does the same for cheaper." by design. That's the natural consequence of following this logic.
AnomanderRake wrote: To my mind the issue here is that if "army vs. army" balance is your central thesis then you end up creating a set of trap options. If you assume that players will "build to their army's strengths" but then leave the possibility of not doing so in the book someone might, say, think taking World Eaters Chaos Marines is a relevant thing to do because they aren't living inside the designer's head and you haven't communicated well that an army that uses basic Marines is just straight-up worse than one that uses only Berzerkers.
To my mind the goal of "balance" isn't to ensure that every unit is exactly as good as every other unit, or that every army is exactly as good as every other army, it is to ensure that there is a real reason to play every army and every unit. It isn't about absolute tournament list-presence level of fiddly specific balance, it's about making sure there are no units/armies whose tactics advice is "never buy this, it's crap" or "never take this, it's always better under every possible circumstance to take this other one."
Yes, exactly!
The problem is, this game is bland. If the question: "I'm playing World Eaters, should I buy Chaos Space Marines" is "meh, doesn't matter, each unit is viable" then the difference between World Eaters and Black Legion is basically zilch.
Running a foot horde of guardsmen from Armageddon should be outright worse than running a mechanized regiment, for example.
The game becomes bland if every unit does the same thing, but it isn't bland if you make units comparable but situationally more useful. The problem is that GW hasn't parsed this and has tried to make too many different units that do the exact same thing as each other.
Consider as a counterexample Warmachine. If you called me up and said "Hey, Anomander, I just bought a Warpwolf box and I was wondering which one I should build?", we can start having a discussion about how the Feral is a frontline murderbeast hampered in its usefulness by its short melee reach, while the Stalker is a generalist tool that doesn't have the same brute-force killing power a Stalker can put out but its animus and its longer melee range open up a wider range of attack vectors and the ability to warp for Berserk makes it great at clearing tough infantry, while the Pureblood doesn't have anything like the melee output of the other two but has a high-damage shooting attack and some tremendously useful support abilities that let it interact with other units in your list in interesting ways. Then we might start asking questions about what else is in your list and how the Warpwolf might interact with it/what holes the Warpwolf might plug/what your warcaster(s) do for it and what it does for them.
If you called me up with the same question about a 40k kit my answers might range from "there are various fiddly technical reasons why you might do one or the other but for the most part do what looks cool" (ex. "Do I build my Custodian Wardens with spears or axes?") to "there is one functional loadout, everything else is a trap" (ex. "How should I arm my Dreadnaught?") to "ahahahaha why did you buy that kit" (ex. "How should I build my Assault Marines?"). The game is laden with trap choices; things you shouldn't build, things you shouldn't buy, and things that look different but fundamentally aren't.
I'm not asking for every option to be the same, or every option to be exactly as valuable as every other option; those are absolutely ways to make the game more bland. But I would love it if I could sit down to build a kit and think to myself "Now, what do I want this unit to do on the tabletop, and how do I go about building them to do that?" instead of "Which loadout is playable and which is a trap?", or if I could look at a wall in a game store and think to myself "Which of these looks cool?" rather than "Which of these is the 'never buy this' trap that is going to get me laughed at if I try and put it on the table?"
The answer to the question "should I buy Chaos Marines for my World Eaters?" shouldn't be "meh doesn't matter everything works about the same", and it shouldn't be "never ever just get more berzerkers", it should be "these are the things CSM do that Berzerkers don't and these are the circumstances/lists in which you might want to do those things".
(Though note that GW does screw itself on this front by making two different units with very slightly different statlines that really do the exact same thing; ex. Dreadnaughts/Venerable Dreadnaughts (where one is ~1/6th more expensive after weapons to be about 1/6th better at hitting things and about 1/6th tougher), or Custodian Wardens (who are similarly ~1/6th more expensive with spears than normal Custodians and ~1/6th killier/1/6th tougher, so the difference ends up being "do I want the squad that can use axes or the squad that can use storm shields"). It would be easier to make a larger percentage of choices into viable choices rather than trap choices if there were fewer different almost identical units; one Guardsmen squad instead of Conscripts/Veterans/Guardsmen, for instance.)
The problem, Anomander, with your proscription is that army identity means there will always be better choices.
CSMdo offer things that Berzerkers don't. They have longer ranged shooting, access to special weapons in greater quantites, and are much more flexible when part of your army is forced to sit back and hold an objective.
The problem is, of course, that those aren't things World Eaters do or care about. The differences between Berzerkers and CSM are essentially "become worse at melee to become better at shooting" - in an army that doesn't shoot, and really has no business doing so.
Your Warmachine example is more like "how should I build this unit of Berzerkers? Are plasma pistols worth it to try to crack some armour before charging in? Should the champion have a power fist, or trade the fist in for something like an axe or maul, which are better against T3 targets? What unit size should I make?" Things like that.
There are options in 40k when building individual kits. Some of the options are bad when considering things (e.g. Vanquisher Leman Russ) but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be thrown out (e.g. Demolisher vs Battlecannon russ is a real question now after CA2018).
Do you think that 40k could do with taking a leaf out of the Warmachine book and having different HQs benefit different units? As opposed to just handing out generic buffs to every unit from that army.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Which is EXACTLY why Unit vs Unit is physically impossible. You can't do Unit vs Unit without looking at synergies, and the second you do that, you've changed the scope from Unit vs Unit, to Army vs Army (because you have to take into account the entire codex to account for synergies). Honestly, even Army vs Army will eventually snowball into Faction vs Faction because of synergies. Plus, in order to do UvsU, you have to decide what the default "unit" is and build around that. This means the game will eventually lack proper granularity while also being limited by whatever limitations are inherent to that base unit. One of the reasons MEQs are in such a rough spot is because in the very early days of 40K, the GW design team used a UvsU approach with Space Marines as the default unit. Since then, the game has grown by leaps and bounds, and a basic MEQ stat line is not what it used to be, and we can actually see the negative results of this approach. No thanks.
While I think the idea of true "balance" in 40K is probably a pipe-dream, if you were going to approach balancing things from one of the standpoints in this thread, you would first have to decide what level you want the game to be played at. Unit vs Unit only works with a truly squad level game (and even then, almost every game I've seen take this approach has ended up being fairly boring. The AT 43 starter set really suffered from this approach for example). At the moment, like it or not, it seems like the game is being played largely at the "Faction" level (soup would not be a thing were this not true). So with that in mind, I'd probably go Faction vs Faction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 17:25:24
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
This is where I stop taking you seriously. Tau are supposed to be bad generally (army-wide) in melee, not have non-existent melee or be unable to field a dedicated melee unit.
However, if that dedicated melee unit is as good as, say, Black Templars Crusader Squads on a points-efficiency comparison, then simply by allowing Tau to have the unit, then you've allowed them to not be bad in melee army-wide, since you could build an army almost entirely out of that unit alone. Therefore, the melee unit needs to be worse than melee units in other codexes.
That is not how the rule of three works... Also, you can make them "worse" from an army cohesion perspective rather than a points efficiency perspective. Example: Ogryn for IG. Actually pretty tough and moderately well pointed melee unit that lacks any kind of army cohesion (unable to take orders and receive regimental doctrines), but still punches its weight and has its place. Melee guard really isn't a thing (outside of catachan) but ogryns allow the IG to have a heavy hitter melee unit whilst making them unable to base an entire army around them.
Making a unit less efficient from an army cohesion perspective or limiting the amount you can take (via the rule of 3 or other such rules) makes people say "Ah, I can take this unit for a specific purpose but I shouldn't/can't spam them because that isn't what my army is about". Making a unit less efficient from a points per power perspective makes people say "I don't want to take this because it's awful for its cost and takes away points that I can use to spend on other things".
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 17:37:35
This is where I stop taking you seriously. Tau are supposed to be bad generally (army-wide) in melee, not have non-existent melee or be unable to field a dedicated melee unit.
However, if that dedicated melee unit is as good as, say, Black Templars Crusader Squads on a points-efficiency comparison, then simply by allowing Tau to have the unit, then you've allowed them to not be bad in melee army-wide, since you could build an army almost entirely out of that unit alone. Therefore, the melee unit needs to be worse than melee units in other codexes.
That is not how the rule of three works... Also, you can make them "worse" from an army cohesion perspective rather than a points efficiency perspective. Example: Ogryn for IG. Actually pretty tough and moderately well pointed melee unit that lacks any kind of army cohesion (unable to take orders and receive regimental doctrines), but still punches its weight and has its place. Melee guard really isn't a thing (outside of catachan) but ogryns allow the IG to have a heavy hitter melee unit whilst making them unable to base an entire army around them.
Kroot are troops. That’s how rule of three works.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
This is where I stop taking you seriously. Tau are supposed to be bad generally (army-wide) in melee, not have non-existent melee or be unable to field a dedicated melee unit.
However, if that dedicated melee unit is as good as, say, Black Templars Crusader Squads on a points-efficiency comparison, then simply by allowing Tau to have the unit, then you've allowed them to not be bad in melee army-wide, since you could build an army almost entirely out of that unit alone. Therefore, the melee unit needs to be worse than melee units in other codexes.
That is not how the rule of three works... Also, you can make them "worse" from an army cohesion perspective rather than a points efficiency perspective. Example: Ogryn for IG. Actually pretty tough and moderately well pointed melee unit that lacks any kind of army cohesion (unable to take orders and receive regimental doctrines), but still punches it's weight and has its place. Melee guard really isn't a thing (and shouldn't be outside of catachan) but ogryns allow the IG to have a heavy hitter melee unit whilst making them unable to base an entire army around them.
Kroot are Troops and exempt from the Rule of Three, last I checked, and also Ro3 is not a bandaid for this problem. You can run a single datasheet of some units to well over the number of points used in a 500 point game. Remember, Black Templars need to be better at Melee than Tau even at 500 points, as well as 60,000.
And worse from a "cohesion" perspective is worse from a points efficiency perspective. Ogryns are worse melee units than Custodes Bike Captains. Ogryns have never seen the top tables in a long while. They're suboptimal competitive choices, and asking in a thread "what melee options should I field with Imperial Guard?" the answer will be "In mono-Guard, Ogryns, but in competitive play? Custodes Bike Captains/Smash Captains/Knight Gallant."
Ogryns are exactly the example I am talking about when I say "a melee unit in a shooting army should be less points efficient in melee than a melee unit in a melee army." You've literally chosen the example that proves the rule. Ogryns vs. Berzerkers isn't even a fight, it's a one-sided slaughter for the same points cost, especially including stratagems, army synergies, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 17:37:39
Then maybe they shouldn't be. If it means that kroot actually punch their weight maybe they should be elites and limited to the rule of 3 so that they are no longer a "trap" choice and exist to waste people's time. Because, as it stands half the units in the game aren't worth their points compared to the other half. This is not diversity, it's the illusion of diversity.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ogryns are exactly the example I am talking about when I say "a melee unit in a shooting army should be less points efficient in melee than a melee unit in a melee army." You've literally chosen the example that proves the rule. Ogryns vs. Berzerkers isn't even a fight, it's a one-sided slaughter for the same points cost, especially including stratagems, army synergies, etc.
Math please? Last I checked ogryns were actually a pretty efficient melee option even when compared to dedicated melee units from other factions, although I will admit I have not run them in awhile.
Tycho wrote: So with that in mind, I'd probably go Faction vs Faction.
But if you balance units against the best of what "might" be taken alongside of them (synergy wise), they are under-powered unless you take that "best" option.
This is how we get things like space marines being balanced around always having Gulliman present even though he is an ultramarines character.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 17:51:19
Which is EXACTLY why Unit vs Unit is physically impossible. You can't do Unit vs Unit without looking at synergies, and the second you do that, you've changed the scope from Unit vs Unit, to Army vs Army (because you have to take into account the entire codex to account for synergies). Honestly, even Army vs Army will eventually snowball into Faction vs Faction because of synergies. Plus, in order to do UvsU, you have to decide what the default "unit" is and build around that. This means the game will eventually lack proper granularity while also being limited by whatever limitations are inherent to that base unit. One of the reasons MEQs are in such a rough spot is because in the very early days of 40K, the GW design team used a UvsU approach with Space Marines as the default unit. Since then, the game has grown by leaps and bounds, and a basic MEQ stat line is not what it used to be, and we can actually see the negative results of this approach. No thanks.
While I think the idea of true "balance" in 40K is probably a pipe-dream, if you were going to approach balancing things from one of the standpoints in this thread, you would first have to decide what level you want the game to be played at. Unit vs Unit only works with a truly squad level game (and even then, almost every game I've seen take this approach has ended up being fairly boring. The AT 43 starter set really suffered from this approach for example). At the moment, like it or not, it seems like the game is being played largely at the "Faction" level (soup would not be a thing were this not true). So with that in mind, I'd probably go Faction vs Faction.
I don't think this is necessarily true.
I mean to take the example of World Eaters. On the table you will need to deal with vehicles - either long range sniping vehicles or just transports.
You can run (or drive) khorne berzerkers to them. It may however make more sense to pack some heavy firepower of your own. To take out those kiting ravagers (or flyers) or to break open vehicles so your berzerkers can charge.
The options to do this - say Havocs, or las-toting Helbrutes - should be viable in themselves. Sure they might not be as good as Iron Warriors versions ignoring cover but they can still do the job to a certain acceptable standard which is deemed to be balanced. They should not be crap.
Now obviously if you make it so actually the World Eaters player is better off just spamming havocs, helbrutes, those plasma spitting dinosaurs etc in a gunline then something has gone wrong in the design process. But if the only option you should take is berzerkers regardless of your opponent then that's bad design too.
Crimson wrote: The last time I faced Ogryns they felt quite effective in melee!
Quite effective != As Effective as Berzerkers.
There's a large gulf between "Tau Squad" and "Berzerker Squad" in which melee units can fit. Ogryns shouldn't be (and aren't) out-performing melee specialists, but are themselves melee specialists and outperform the majority of the game (shooting units and non-melee specialists, and generalists).
I don't think this is necessarily true.
I mean to take the example of World Eaters. On the table you will need to deal with vehicles - either long range sniping vehicles or just transports.
You can run (or drive) khorne berzerkers to them. It may however make more sense to pack some heavy firepower of your own. To take out those kiting ravagers (or flyers) or to break open vehicles so your berzerkers can charge.
The options to do this - say Havocs, or las-toting Helbrutes - should be viable in themselves. Sure they might not be as good as Iron Warriors versions ignoring cover but they can still do the job to a certain acceptable standard which is deemed to be balanced. They should not be crap.
chances of
Now obviously if you make it so actually the World Eaters player is better off just spamming havocs, helbrutes, those plasma spitting dinosaurs etc in a gunline then something has gone wrong in the design process. But if the only option you should take is berzerkers regardless of your opponent then that's bad design too.
You just did exactly what I'm talking about though. In considering berzerkers, you branched out to other units in the army, thus making it an "army level" comparison ...
But if you balance units against the best of what "might" be taken alongside of them (synergy wise), they are under-powered unless you take that "best" option.
This is how we get things like space marines being balanced around always having Gulliman present even though he is an ultramarines character.
Which is why I said true balance is probably a pipe dream with the game as it current;y stands (certainly we can already see this issue at times when PL is used instead of points). That said though, the reverse is also true. If you don't consider what might be taken along side a certain unit, that unit can become over-powered. We see this all the time when GW looks at a unit in a vacuum. Conscripts were a prime example of this prior to some of the nerfs. Like it or not, synergy is a major part of the game (especially in 8th with all the aura effects), and trying to balance the game without considering it, is a huge waste of time. Also, Space Marines "being balanced around Gman" isn't something the GW staff intended to do. That came about as a by-product of the player base combined with Gman being ridiculous and most of the rest of the Marine codex being average to below average at best. It wasn't an intent of the design strategy, but rather a flaw IN the strategy (as MEQs in general are still suffering from the Unit vs Unit approach from back when this was intended as more of a squad based game).
I admit it's less than perfect, but I think if you zoom out to the faction level (provided we agree that this is the level the game is generally being played at), you still have more options for balance and fewer chances of accidental OP combos than if you go Army vs Army (because Unit to Unit is still just not possible at this stage of the game imo).
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem, Anomander, with your proscription is that army identity means there will always be better choices.
CSMdo offer things that Berzerkers don't. They have longer ranged shooting, access to special weapons in greater quantites, and are much more flexible when part of your army is forced to sit back and hold an objective.
The problem is, of course, that those aren't things World Eaters do or care about. The differences between Berzerkers and CSM are essentially "become worse at melee to become better at shooting" - in an army that doesn't shoot, and really has no business doing so.
Your Warmachine example is more like "how should I build this unit of Berzerkers? Are plasma pistols worth it to try to crack some armour before charging in? Should the champion have a power fist, or trade the fist in for something like an axe or maul, which are better against T3 targets? What unit size should I make?" Things like that.
There are options in 40k when building individual kits. Some of the options are bad when considering things (e.g. Vanquisher Leman Russ) but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be thrown out (e.g. Demolisher vs Battlecannon russ is a real question now after CA2018).
It sounds like we have different perspectives on what "army identity" should mean. GW likes "army identity" to be concrete numbers on a statline; this is a shooty army therefore their guns have better stats, this is a choppy army therefore their melee weapons have better stats, etc; rather than trying to give an army a personality independent of the game rules.
Going back to Warmachine for a moment the common trap is to do things like say "Cygnar is a 'ranged faction'"; that is a gross oversimplification of a faction identity that's built around precision and disruptive counterplay. Their choices, both ranged and melee, tend to support a strategy of removing support pieces their opponent's army requires to function; within that framework you have access to the full spectrum of mechanics, unit types, and rules that exist in the game, and you can construct a wide variety of builds that make use of a whole bunch of different peices. Similarly someone may tell you Khador is a "melee faction" and completely miss the Winter Guard blast gunline that is completely in character for a faction identity built around brute force and saturation of attacks.
GW, by contrast, writes "faction identity" as "this is a melee faction, therefore they are not allowed to have any efficient or effective ranged choices" (see: Adeptus Custodes, Daemons), or "this is a ranged faction, therefore they are not allowed to have any efficient or effective melee choices" (see: Tau, AdMech). It stops being the personality of the faction and starts being specific lists; the "faction identity" of the White Scars, for instance, became "an all-bike army" in 5e-7e to the point that people over on Proposed Rules pop up to grumble about not being able to take Bikes in Troops in 8e because it means they "can't play a fluffy White Scars army". The personality of the White Scars isn't supposed to be "motorcycles", it's supposed to be about speed, aggression, and hit-and-run tactics, but the way GW writes rules every time they do a new book they strip that faction's personality back down to a blander, more limited, "spam this one unit" picture of the faction.
Which is certainly one way to solve the fact that a succession of imbeciles at GW think that they need sixty or seventy "factions" with distinct identities; it's very quick and easy to remember them all when they're the "spam this one unit from this one book" faction (the Craftworlds are "the Aspect faction", "the Seer faction", "the Ranger faction", "the Wraithguard faction", and "the Jetbike faction", for instance), but pushing armies to be more mono-build builds these weird army-building traps into the game.
Do you think that 40k could do with taking a leaf out of the Warmachine book and having different HQs benefit different units? As opposed to just handing out generic buffs to every unit from that army.
Probably not; the way 40k is written you'd probably just end up pushing army-building restrictions where you'd only take (unit X) with (HQ Y). The way Warmachine works all the warjacks, warbeasts, and units are middle-of-the-road and kind of bland on their own, but taking them with different support abilities makes them function almost like different units.
The force organization structure is another layer of problem with this; anything that buffed Troops would be too good, anything that buffed anything else would be limited by the fact that you can't have very many of them, and you'd end up with these sort of weirdly limited armies. It's sort of like why you couldn't do a WHFB High Elf book with rules for doing armies from specific Kingdoms; the spearmen, archers, and Silver Helms are the only generic units, so eight Kingdoms would have an army list of four or five units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/02 19:51:04
I think, Anomander, that we do, in fact, have a different definition of faction identity and mechanics.
I think of armies like D&D characters - the Bard can do magic but not as well as a wizard, but has this other music thing he does. The Fighter stabs, but doesn't really cast magic as well as a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer and Wizard cast magic well, but one is flexible but risky while the other is reliable but rigid.
I generally feel like wargame armies should have similar one-sentence blurbs, such as "World Eaters are front-loaded offensive melee; they aren't any tougher than regular Marines but hit like a truck in melee. Conversely, Custodes are the opposite: their offense is pretty good, but not on the level of Berzerkers, while their durability is astonishing." etc. etc.
Things like "precision and disruptive counterplay" are tactics employed by the player in the game. White Scars might have the personality of "aggression, speed, and hit-and-run tactics", but their identity is motorcycles, basically. Because you can't force aggression, speed, and hit-and-run tactics upon a player; there will always be "White Scars gunlines" (this is especially bad in the Heresy). Those are player attributes. Sort of like how you can't force a fighter in D&D to actually stab anyone or behave like a fighter instead of reading books or playing music, but he will never be a bard in the mechanics or in identity.
I'm not sure if I'm phrasing it well, really. But in general, "army identity" is basically 'the mechanism by which that army do'. For example Slaanesh Daemons are the fastest daemons. 'how the army employs the mechanism', whether it is by disrupting their support elements or assassinating their characters or board control or achieving force concentration or whatever is a player thing, and not mechanically enforcable.
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion but not having Warmachine experience to draw from since a while ago in Mark II, but in Mark II I played Khador, and the game did not strike me as having terribly distinct factions. I could go in and say "well, <X> is going to wombo-combo my warcaster, so I better wombo-combo his warcaster first, or plan to be able to mitigate their wombo-combo."
The exact nature of the wombo-combo varied from army to army, but it was always "wombo-combo the warcaster to death" whether it was Cryx or Cygnar or Khador, in my Mark II days (which were themselves mercifully short). I definitely prefer the vast differences between factions in 40k to the less-vast-distances in War Machines. Indeed, there were times I would look at an army, and then have to ask the player what it was because "here are some unpainted 'jaks" was basically the same whether it was Khador or Mercenaries or whathaveyou. I was especially bad at telling Hordes armies apart.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/02 19:56:54
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think, Anomander, that we do, in fact, have a different definition of faction identity and mechanics.
I think of armies like D&D characters - the Bard can do magic but not as well as a wizard, but has this other music thing he does. The Fighter stabs, but doesn't really cast magic as well as a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer and Wizard cast magic well, but one is flexible but risky while the other is reliable but rigid.
I generally feel like wargame armies should have similar one-sentence blurbs, such as "World Eaters are front-loaded offensive melee; they aren't any tougher than regular Marines but hit like a truck in melee. Conversely, Custodes are the opposite: their offense is pretty good, but not on the level of Berzerkers, while their durability is astonishing." etc. etc.
I find the same problem emerges with D&D characters, actually; if you imagine a set of verbs that exist in the game ("punch", "cast", "shoot", etc.) one of the biggest weaknesses of D&D is that a "class" exists to constrain the set of verbs you can use. If I'm playing a Wizard everything I do is "I cast Fireball" or "I run away so I can sleep and regen spell slots"; the way the numbers are written there's no good reason for me to do anything else. There are cases (playing a Fighter in a hack-and-slash game) where you don't need a player, they could be replaced with a little card saying "I hit it with my sword". I'm entirely happy with giving armies one-sentence blurbs, but the blurb shouldn't be "World Eaters are a melee rush army that spams Berzerkers". The army's personality shouldn't be "this is the specific list you always play with this Codex".
Things like "precision and disruptive counterplay" are tactics employed by the player in the game. White Scars might have the personality of "aggression, speed, and hit-and-run tactics", but their identity is motorcycles, basically. Because you can't force aggression, speed, and hit-and-run tactics upon a player; there will always be "White Scars gunlines" (this is especially bad in the Heresy). Those are player attributes. Sort of like how you can't force a fighter in D&D to actually stab anyone or behave like a fighter instead of reading books or playing music, but he will never be a bard in the mechanics or in identity.
I'm not sure if I'm phrasing it well, really. But in general, "army identity" is basically 'the mechanism by which that army do'. For example Slaanesh Daemons are the fastest daemons. 'how the army employs the mechanism', whether it is by disrupting their support elements or assassinating their characters or board control or achieving force concentration or whatever is a player thing, and not mechanically enforcable.
You can't force a player to use certain tactics, but you can build the rules such that certain tactics work better than others. Take a Cygnar army into a Warmachine game planning to use brute-force toe-to-toe tactics and you will probably lose because it's not how the army works; take a PanO army into an Infinity game planning to sneak around and use indirect/ambush tactics and you'll probably get squished because, again, it's not how the army works. Building an army's identity around tactical decision-making rather than around the rules means you have more options building an army and more options playing the game, if you build the army's identity around the rules they use you force them into single-build lists with a limited battle plan.
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion but not having Warmachine experience to draw from since a while ago in Mark II, but in Mark II I played Khador, and the game did not strike me as having terribly distinct factions. I could go in and say "well, <X> is going to wombo-combo my warcaster, so I better wombo-combo his warcaster first, or plan to be able to mitigate their wombo-combo."
The exact nature of the wombo-combo varied from army to army, but it was always "wombo-combo the warcaster to death" whether it was Cryx or Cygnar or Khador, in my Mark II days (which were themselves mercifully short).
Warmachine is a strange game in that it requires tournament scenarios to function; there are three broad classes of strategy (control/scenario, attrition, and assassination) and the game becomes interesting when you have to attack and defend along multiple victory methods. Without a scenario the game is just "who can set up to combo out first" and some armies are better at setting up to combo out than others.
Most games other than Warhammer 40k make at least an attempt to give an army a strategic personality independent of the game mechanics, but they also tend to have to deal with <10 factions rather than the vast quantity 40k has to deal with.
Ah, so what you see as problem, I do not. The player isn't there to decide only what the wizard does in combat (Rest v Fight -> Spells), because that is fairly routine. The player is there to role-play. to push the boundaries. To see if they can overcome obstacles given the limited set of stuff they have to work with (i.e. the limited number of verbs they can perform).
Here's a question addressing your second point: what's the difference between "building the rules such that certain tactics work better than others" for a given army, and "arranging the army's entries such that some list-building choices work better than others"? One is done at the table, the other before the table, but they're both the game gently nudging you into playing a certain way with a faction. I fail to see the difference between "if you brute force with Cygnar, you lose" or "if you try to sneak around and use ambush tactics with Pan Oceania you lose" and "if you try to play World Eaters as a gunline, you lose."
and then tell you not to do it.
and not remove anything at all.
