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.
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
I certainly agree that is the intent, but the execution is not quite right. Troops also get ObSec, which has its own value.
So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
8E's original 3CPs for a Battalion is far closer to what it SHOULD be. Outriders/Spearheads/Vanguard then being 1CP don't seem so trash in comparison.
Taking Battalions/Brigades back down to 3/9CPs and changing Battle Forge to 5CPs would go a long way to rebalancing Soup (not completely fixed, but the gap won't be so wide between Soup and mono-faction lists).
Do that simple change and then give some reward to Monofaction lists and now Soup really won't be that bad.
And as I have stated many times, I think the best way to boost monofactions would be to give additional CPs to detachments that share 2+ keyword with your WL
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered?
The weakness is supposed to be lack of mobility. IG are an unstoppable force that can overwhelm anything with sheer volume of dice and bodies, but they're slow to apply that force and are easily outmaneuvered by faster armies. An IG player who screws up their positioning or makes the wrong call on which objectives to go for can find themselves thoroughly camped on their deployment zone but unable to do much besides keep those objectives 100% secure and hope for a stray Basilisk shot to finish off the enemy unit claiming something on the other side of the table. That's why the few fast IG units are either aircraft (which can't score at all) or one-shot suicide weapons (storm troopers) that are really just a Basilisk shot on round bases. But 8th edition has two problems with this theory:
1) Lack of a reasonable LOS system. If nothing blocks LOS then gunlines are too good and a lack of mobility doesn't really matter. There's nowhere to hide an objective camping unit, so who cares if you're out of position? Just declare a target on the other side of the table and kill it with no penalty.
2) Soup giving IG units they aren't supposed to have. Suffering from a lack of fast units that can wreck stuff in the inevitable melee combat that happens when you move up to claim objectives? No problem, just ally in some jetbikes or a melee knight.
Fix both of these things and IG are much less of a problem.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Reemule wrote: Its harder to fill a Outrider detachment to full that hit the minimum size on a battalion. It should be rewarded more.
Being harder is not the point. The point of the CP per detachment mechanic is to encourage you to take more of your "core" units. A 5th edition style troops-heavy army gets lots of CP as a reward, an army that spams the best infantry death stars/artillery gunlines/etc instead of core units has to settle for the 1 CP detachments. Rewarding you for spamming non-troops units even more would be missing the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Like, assuming perfect balance, what's the weakness for Imperial Guard that can't be covered?
The weakness is supposed to be lack of mobility. IG are an unstoppable force that can overwhelm anything with sheer volume of dice and bodies, but they're slow to apply that force and are easily outmaneuvered by faster armies. An IG player who screws up their positioning or makes the wrong call on which objectives to go for can find themselves thoroughly camped on their deployment zone but unable to do much besides keep those objectives 100% secure and hope for a stray Basilisk shot to finish off the enemy unit claiming something on the other side of the table. That's why the few fast IG units are either aircraft (which can't score at all) or one-shot suicide weapons (storm troopers) that are really just a Basilisk shot on round bases. But 8th edition has two problems with this theory:
1) Lack of a reasonable LOS system. If nothing blocks LOS then gunlines are too good and a lack of mobility doesn't really matter. There's nowhere to hide an objective camping unit, so who cares if you're out of position? Just declare a target on the other side of the table and kill it with no penalty.
2) Soup giving IG units they aren't supposed to have. Suffering from a lack of fast units that can wreck stuff in the inevitable melee combat that happens when you move up to claim objectives? No problem, just ally in some jetbikes or a melee knight.
Fix both of these things and IG are much less of a problem.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Don’t be thinking about nerfing Militarum Tempestus! Militarum Tempestus can be its own Astra Militarum army, just with a radically different playstyle than that of a Guard army.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Let's be clear here:
"Rough Riders" are an Index unit and are just "okay".
It's the Death Riders from the DKoK list that we keep seeing make an appearance.
Additionally, Scions are almost exclusively used as kamikaze units. If you do anything to make them not fill that role, I'd be happy.
SUPPOSED to be. In reality, the moment their transports are worth anything, they cover that immediate weakness outside Valkyries (who cares they can't capture objectives), Rough Riders, and Scions.
What you're suggesting to create those weaknesses by making those units bad. That's stupid.
Let's be clear here:
"Rough Riders" are an Index unit and are just "okay".
It's the Death Riders from the DKoK list that we keep seeing make an appearance.
Additionally, Scions are almost exclusively used as kamikaze units. If you do anything to make them not fill that role, I'd be happy.
Not Online!!! wrote: Morale however does rarely play a factor because msuIG squad spam.
When you say "msuIG squad spam", are you just referring to "taking Infantry Squads"?
They usually are, yeah.
Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
It's ignorance like suggesting 4th edition Necrons had limited mobility. If you made the army on purpose to not have mobility, maybe...
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I personally feel that saying that DKoK(a specific Regimental army list) having mobility is kind of a copout. The same thing goes for an Index unit that hasn't had models for two editions.
It's not really relevant for most people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/15 21:16:40
well morale is a non issue 90% of the time for inf squads.
Edit: for all bubblewrap msu troops really.
Not saying that is bad, but it kinda shows the shortcoming of the morale mechanic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/15 21:41:52
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 5 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes!
2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes!
3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps something which would prevent the sharing of CP between armies? Use similar rules to Battle Brothers so that you have to share a (non-Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids) keyword in order to use CP generated by another detachment.
This solution has been proposed many times. The issue then becomes one of book keeping and it makes the benefits of the special detachments (e.g. Spearhead, Outrider, etc.) pointless. It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps in addition to going back to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade they add another part to Battle Brothers where the player has to pay CP's to add Faction Keywords to their army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/15 22:19:47
Kanluwen wrote: I personally feel that saying that DKoK(a specific Regimental army list) having mobility is kind of a copout. The same thing goes for an Index unit that hasn't had models for two editions.
It's not really relevant for most people.
Yeah because NOBODY owns any Rough Riders whatsoever and nobody is using any Index options.
Get a grip.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Kanluwen wrote: I personally feel that saying that DKoK(a specific Regimental army list) having mobility is kind of a copout. The same thing goes for an Index unit that hasn't had models for two editions.
It's not really relevant for most people.
Yeah because NOBODY owns any Rough Riders whatsoever and nobody is using any Index options.
Get a grip.
I own 0 Rough Riders. I never needed them before and never wanted them. I own 0 Death Riders as well, because I don't play DKoK.
The only "Index" options I use come from the FW Index, and that is:
Rapier Laser Destroyer
Tarantula Sentry Guns with Heavy Bolters
Crassus
Vulture with twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
But hypothetical question here:
Why don't tournaments just ban Index options if things like Rough Riders(which, again: we're really only seeing in DKoK versions of which have different rules to standard Rough Riders) are such a problem?
Perhaps more is needed than just going back to 5 and 9 for these detachments, but limiting the CP resource pool accomplishes quite a bit.
1. Limits the ability to repeatedly use stratagems that easily swing the pendulum of balance... Yes!
2. Makes armies that rely on repeated use stratagems weaker... Yes!
3. Limits the CP resource pool for multiple small Battalions... Yes!
Perhaps something which would prevent the sharing of CP between armies? Use similar rules to Battle Brothers so that you have to share a (non-Chaos, Imperium, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranids) keyword in order to use CP generated by another detachment.
This solution has been proposed many times. The issue then becomes one of book keeping and it makes the benefits of the special detachments (e.g. Spearhead, Outrider, etc.) pointless. It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps in addition to going back to 3 and 9 CP's for the Battalion and Brigade they add another part to Battle Brothers where the player has to pay CP's to add Faction Keywords to their army.
Yeah this always gets thrown around as an excuse but
1.keeping track of 3 CP pools is no harder than tracking the wounds on 3 tanks. If you can't handle that amount of bookkeeping you are playing the wrong game
2. Battle forged CP goes to your warlord detachment
a few others that always get used as an excuse
Q. What if i regen a CP A. whatever detachment the character or item that allowed it was in gains it
Q. what if i use a reroll
A. whatever detachment the reroll was being used on
Seriously though tracking cp is one of the lamest ways to discount that idea. Its as much work as saying "this land raider has taken 4 wound and this one has only taken 2"
oni wrote: It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
I mean, the simple solution is any detachment in the army can use those 3 points. They were generated by the entire army being battle forged, so they belong to the entire army. If GW doesn't like that idea, assigning them to the WL's detachment would make sense, too. That's not exactly a hard thing to decide.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/15 22:58:02
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
oni wrote: It also then raises the question of how are the 3 CP's for being battle forged allocated?
I mean, the simple solution is any detachment in the army can use those 3 points. They were generated by the entire army being battle forged, so they belong to the entire army. If GW doesn't like that idea, assigning them to the WL's detachment would make sense, too. That's not exactly a hard thing to decide.
A couple thoughts that have already been said:
1. To say that "allies have been around since second edition" is disingenuous, the game radically changed in 3rd. Furthermore, while I had allies for my Daemonhunters in 4th, it was extremely limited...there was an approved list of units in the codex I could add from Imperial guard or Space marines. That's not "allies" in the way we're talking about them now.
2. Allies can be fluffy. In previous editions, the way you saw this was in team games or special narrative events (in my experience).
Despite the good things that allies can bring to the game, ever since their introduction as a universal mechanic in 6th edition they have caused problems. The core premise of the codex-based army system has been that each army fits a theme and playstyle, with strengths and weaknesses. As soon as you can cherry-pick units though, that mechanic disapears. Allies do let you play inquisition or guard with space marines, but they have also spawned TauDar, Riptide Wing, CentStar, Superfriends, and Daemon-summoning space marines (with GK help). The point is that they have historically caused more harm than good, and even though Blood Angels+Necrons might seem vaguely fluffy many other combos are not, and allies have enabled a new wave of list-based tournament gaming which ruins both the competitive and casual scene alike.
There are solutions for those who want allies to stay, including rolling similar armies into the same codex or allowing limited souping from fluff-based alliances. But the current situation is bad for the game and the players.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
For me, saying that Allies have caused problems since they have been introduced in the game is a non sequitur because everything that is introduced into the game causes problems.
Vehicles, Flyers, Super heavies, Special Characters, Stratagems, Sub-faction bonuses, Psychic Powers, all of those things add both problems and dept to the game, and Allies aren't different.
Of course nearly all of those previous things will have people that believe they should or shouldn't belong in W40K, just like Allies, but to put Allies as some special and diferent case is something I just don't think is right to do.
And I say this being a Imperium (As is, someone that play Imperium armies with detachment of different factions, Tempestus Scions, Sisters of Silence, Adeptus Custodes, Imperial Assasins and Imperial Knights in my case) player that wants to se further restrictions in soup and mix and max of detachments.
My favourite is, each sub-faction can only use his own CP and remove the generic +3CP, making those exclusive for armies where all detachments share the same sub-faction. And also change the three special detachments to give +2 CP instead of +1CP.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Galas wrote: For me, saying that Allies have caused problems since they have been introduced in the game is a non sequitur because everything that is introduced into the game causes problems.
Vehicles, Flyers, Super heavies, Special Characters, Stratagems, Sub-faction bonuses, Psychic Powers, all of those things add both problems and dept to the game, and Allies aren't different.
Vehicles and psychic powers have been around as long as some would have us believe allies have been, and while they have at times created issues (Rhino Rush, Parking Lot, Invisibility) the abuses were specific and more importantly lasted for at most an edition or so. TauDar dominated tournaments as soon as the 6th ed allies matrix dropped, and allies have had a negative impact ffrom then until now...in 8th edition. The time span may be shorter, but the core rules have changed alot in that time and Allies are still causing a problem. Allies aren't 100% bad, but they have thus far caused much more harm than good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/16 03:03:02
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Galas wrote: For me, saying that Allies have caused problems since they have been introduced in the game is a non sequitur because everything that is introduced into the game causes problems.
Vehicles, Flyers, Super heavies, Special Characters, Stratagems, Sub-faction bonuses, Psychic Powers, all of those things add both problems and dept to the game, and Allies aren't different.
Vehicles and psychic powers have been around as long as some would have us believe allies have been, and while they have at times created issues (Rhino Rush, Parking Lot, Invisibility) the abuses were specific and more importantly lasted for at most an edition or so. TauDar dominated tournaments as soon as the 6th ed allies matrix dropped, and allies have had a negative impact ffrom then until now...in 8th edition. The time span may be shorter, but the core rules have changed alot in that time and Allies are still causing a problem. Allies aren't 100% bad, but they have thus far caused much more harm than good.
WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Really makes you think, huh? What's that again about allies causing more harm than good again?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
No one has issues with vehicles these days. No one has OP psychic powers. But allies have been broken for 3 editions...and it’s not like “oh fix invisibility”. It’s a Hydra, as soon as you cut off one combo another appears. I’ve listed dominant lists from 3 different editions, with a variety of different units and combinations. You can’t just keep playing whack-a-mole with allies because the same hammer doesn’t work on the same unit in the different possible combos, unless you treat all the alliances as a single army and balance against that metric...but like it or not mono codex is still a major part of 40K and has been for most of the history of the game.
Sure, you can go Grand Alliance style, but that turns 40K into a list-optimization, broken-unit hunt game and not everyone benefits equally. This is before you factor in the rules bloat and ease of play factors, too.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/16 04:33:17
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC? That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC? That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
Good! A restricted experience is not inherently bad. Most of the problems we see in 40k over the past few editions are down to the removal of restrictions. The old FOC has a lot of advantages. It creates armies that actually look and feel like armies. At the recent LVO we had an Eldar army with 7 flyers, a Chaos army which was pretty much a whole bunch of monstrous Daemonic characters and other "armies" barely worthy of the name. A friend of mine who hasn't played much 40k this edition recently commented on a couple of games going on at our club, pointing out the stuff on the board didn't resemble anything like an army, and that really put him off getting back into the game. The FOC also gives you a defined structure to balance around and helps create balance by reigning in the power of some units via a hard cap on their numbers.
I think something similar to the old FOC, with the possibility of some restricted allied detachment alongside it would improve 40k hugely. It won't happen because the current army selection structure is designed to maximise profits rather than the gameplay experience.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nevertheless, the mobility is still there for Imperial Guard when they want it. So limited mobility is not a weakness.
Except it is a weakness, because that mobility is weak overall and you aren't encouraged to take it. Valkyries can't score objectives at all, rough riders are a glass cannon unit like storm troopers and poor at holding objectives, and taking a Chimera list means giving up the super-efficient horde of infantry that IG are great at while still being dependent on those infantry units to hold objectives. It's like saying that poor melee is not a weakness of Tau because they have unit with more than zero attacks, or shooting is not a weakness of Khorne because berserkers have bolt pistols.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: WOW, it's almost as though it were specific instances of these particular issues that were problems rather than the whole concept themselves!
Yep, and that's the difference between allies and all those other rules. Vehicles are not inherently broken, the balance issues came primarily from specific units that had incorrect point costs. Allies are inherently damaging to balance because granting the ability to pick the best units out of multiple factions and bypass any designed weaknesses is something that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to balance. And any hope of making allies balanced requires imposing a significant penalty for taking them, something GW refuses to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So while I agree that Troop heavy detachments should get more CPs that those that require no Troops, I vehemently disagree that the disparity should be 5 to 1.
You're right, it shouldn't be 5 to 1. It should be infinity to one because the only detachment is the 5th edition FOC and you get exactly one per army, restricted to one codex. The non-troops detachments should be viewed as a reluctant concession to people who hate the troops tax, not something you should be encouraged to use.
And what excactly is the reason to go back to the old FOC? That literally leads to the reimplementation of platoon structures and in many ways a more restricted gameplay experience.
Good! A restricted experience is not inherently bad. Most of the problems we see in 40k over the past few editions are down to the removal of restrictions. The old FOC has a lot of advantages. It creates armies that actually look and feel like armies. At the recent LVO we had an Eldar army with 7 flyers, a Chaos army which was pretty much a whole bunch of monstrous Daemonic characters and other "armies" barely worthy of the name. A friend of mine who hasn't played much 40k this edition recently commented on a couple of games going on at our club, pointing out the stuff on the board didn't resemble anything like an army, and that really put him off getting back into the game. The FOC also gives you a defined structure to balance around and helps create balance by reigning in the power of some units via a hard cap on their numbers.
I think something similar to the old FOC, with the possibility of some restricted allied detachment alongside it would improve 40k hugely. It won't happen because the current army selection structure is designed to maximise profits rather than the gameplay experience.
And needlessly complicates alot of problems, not to mention that troops go back to 2 and armies that can't field squadrons are going to have severly limited options.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
Also it would rephrase back to even more firepower.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
greyknight12 wrote: No one has issues with vehicles these days. No one has OP psychic powers. But allies have been broken for 3 editions...and it’s not like “oh fix invisibility”. It’s a Hydra, as soon as you cut off one combo another appears. I’ve listed dominant lists from 3 different editions, with a variety of different units and combinations. You can’t just keep playing whack-a-mole with allies because the same hammer doesn’t work on the same unit in the different possible combos, unless you treat all the alliances as a single army and balance against that metric...but like it or not mono codex is still a major part of 40K and has been for most of the history of the game.
Sure, you can go Grand Alliance style, but that turns 40K into a list-optimization, broken-unit hunt game and not everyone benefits equally. This is before you factor in the rules bloat and ease of play factors, too.
So much that 7TH top lists were Decurion styles formations, Demon Summoning Circus and WK + Scatterbiker spam, none of which used allies AT ALL.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
The newly dead armies might actually profit from it.
7th edition was playable if neither you nor your opponent played Tau, Eldar or 3000 Points of Space Marines.
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
The newly dead armies might actually profit from it.
7th edition was playable if neither you nor your opponent played Tau, Eldar or 3000 Points of Space Marines.
Or Demons
Or Necron Decurions
Or the new GSC
Sorry but no, 7th was the lowest point 40K ever had
Then there is the issue that at competitive levels certain armies are then completly shafted.
What's the difference from the current state of the game?
Even more dead armies?
That's to say i am not fundamentaly opposed to just not allow soup.
The newly dead armies might actually profit from it.
7th edition was playable if neither you nor your opponent played Tau, Eldar or 3000 Points of Space Marines.
Or Demons
Or Necron Decurions
Or the new GSC
Sorry but no, 7th was the lowest point 40K ever had
That still leaves half of the existing armies, which could fight each other on more or less even ground.
Of course having 2 tiers of armies isn't what we should aim for, but it worked out somehow.
But it certainly is better than the current state, where some armies only work because they can be built as an anti-meta army. Because that means that you have to buy new units every time GW nerfs the top dog.
Necrons for instance became competitively trash by the end. To slow, not enough firepower compared to Eldar, Tau, either Marine build, Knights or Daemons etc. But they were still near to auto-win versus Orks, DE, CSM, Tyranids.
Orks versus Tyranids? Could be a good game - but oh no you took too many Flyrants (why not, they are good) and suddenly its a totally imbalanced game again as the Ork player is destroyed. Same for DE although their unit was the Reaver.
8th is massively better for the casual player base - if you are not facing these horrific soups, the game is probably in the best position its ever been in.
Even this tournament was better than most imo - if you turn away from the top 8 and look at the huge range of lists that went 5-1 there is lots of variety. As a fan though I'd like the top to be a little different next time.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
