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.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.

Well my theory is that people rarely use PL because they don't think it's an accurate means of balance. Granted, points aren't 'balanced', in a lot of ways.

But I think they'll only have PL next edition, and for your list you'll have "Scion Squad"- and that's it, for 5 PL, no other details unless you raise the PL by adding more Scions to the squad. And then when you and your opponent are alternating deploying your units and you see he's laid down a horde of Hormagaunts, you grab Scions with flamers. Or when he puts down Termagants, you grab the Scions with Volley guns- each time deciding specifically which loudout that squad should have based on your opponent's deployment. You'd essentially be list-tailoring as you deploy...

...which would have you buying lots more kits to optimize your units for anything.

I'd be shocked if this didn't happen- because the system is already in place to transition over to that with minimal adjustments for GW, you're gonna be the one that has to scramble and get all the possible variations of weapons a unit can carry.

Nah, but that's not the way Power level is intended right now imo. I think PL is meant to be the exact opposite of that, for people who don't want to optimize but instead want to get the game started fast with the minis they have on their shelves. But Power level and its uses have been discussed on this board many times and usually it ends with Peregrine shouting everyone down as using Power levels as some kind of virtue signalling... So let's not go down that route here

Aelyn wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game?

Is it a legal list? Yes. Therefore it's reasonable.

Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?

Yep. Or at least it's a list with a very back rock/paper/scissors matchup problem, assuming it's very strong against other 500 point lists.

So legal and reasonable are equivalent? Does that mean any list which is illegal is automatically unreasonable?

And yeah, actually, plenty of social games often include an element of pre-game discussion of expectations (or an unspoken agreement of the same) - have you never played a board game with house rules, or played a shooting game with a group that discouraged spawncamping with a sniper, or agreed not to use a broken character in a fighting game etc? These are pretty common things for a lot of people across a lot of games.

Yes, there are badly designed games that require that discussion. Your FPS example is a great one. Spawn camping with sniper rifles is only a problem when poor design allows it to be a problem. Better map design breaks LOS around spawn points, has you spawn in unpredictable locations, etc. In a good game there's no discouragement necessary because the only people complaining about camping with sniper rifles are people who suck at the game and would rather whine and cry about losing than use the available counters to snipers.

There are plenty of other examples I could name for some very well loved games which are generally considered balanced and fair and yet which frequently involve pre-game conversations (playing rugby / american football at a local field and agreeing to play touch-contact instead of full-contact, handicaps in go, bidding conventions in bridge...) My point is that "benefits from pre-game discussion" and "badly-designed" are not even close to the same thing, and that reaching an understanding before a game of what people are trying to get out of it is hardly unique to 40K.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Formats only exist for particular tournaments and otherwise you follow the most current ban list for any pickup game. That's how it's always been. When was the last time you played?

Since I actually played? Two weeks ago, roughly. Maybe a month. But your comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how MTG works. There is no banlist for "pickup games" by default - formats are what define which sets are legal and which specific cards are banned, and it's (almost) unheard of for formats to exist for a single tournament. That's how it works now, and that's how it worked when I started playing 20 years ago.

I like your attempt to throw shade at me by implying I was out of touch, though.

Was referring to Yugioh in that post. Nobody cares about Traditional Format

With that said, MtG is default standard format and it is hard to argue otherwise. Anything else might be in a particular tournament (nobody does pickup draft, come on).

Wayniac wrote:
Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.

No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Put your ear to the community and the answer to this kind of thing pretty clear.

And the answer is "people use both power level and points, and people also play narrative as well as matched play".

Unless you define "the community" as "only those people whom exclusively play at tournaments", you're not gonna find that 99% of people refuse to play anything other matched play with points. At this point, that argument is little more than the 40k equivalent of the "fox only, no items, final destination" meme.

I'll eat my hat if GW takes a poll and even 33% use Power level. GW's non-support for PL kinda proves it too.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.

No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.

They both should be compromising (or playing a different opponent, I guess) which is a lost art?

There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game

The game is fine if you play 2K point ITC games.

Other people play other games and it might or might not work. Who cares? There is a state where the game works, and they ignore it. That is their problem.

There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game

Perhaps that discussion comes from the standpoint of the pickup gamer where they walk into store, ask for game, and expect to set up and play.

I agree, and make it a strong point to stress that if I am running a narrative campaign that means keep your adepticon git gud lists out of the event because its not the place for it. That usually works (but not always).

Pleasestop wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.

No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.

They both should be compromising (or playing a different opponent, I guess) which is a lost art?

There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game

But this goes back to the whole "Why should I have to discuss anything beyond asking if they want to play a game, and then points/mission?" question from before. People don't *WANT* to have to discuss anything. They want to roll up to the store, presumably approach someone else who also is at the store with a 40k army, and go "Hey want to play?" and then just say a couple of words re: the points cost, maybe what mission (EW/Maelstrom/ITC/etc.) and then just start unpacking and setting up the board. No other talk necessary unless it's to declare targets or announce rolls. I would be surprised if these people even made smalltalk with the other person.

Or, I suppose alternatively, already arranged a game with someone via social media and have even less discussion because you already said 2k points Eternal War days before you got to the store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
The game is fine if you play 2K point ITC games.

Other people play other games and it might or might not work. Who cares? There is a state where the game works, and they ignore it. That is their problem.

Are you seriously indicating that ITC is what makes the game "fine" and that everyone should play that deviate state? Even though said deviate state is the exception and not the norm?

To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.

MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?

Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.

The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?

Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.

This is an excellent post and anyone with experience in competitive gaming beyond tabletops, I'd imagine most people but I don't know, should be able to recognise the truth in this statement.

Magic is a bad example. Magic is balanced by core sets specifically. The sets are not made to be balanced against each other. It would be like playing 3rd eddition 40k vs 8th eddition. Bad example. Overwatch? OMG. It's a 1st person shooter - Skill at the game is going to be the greatest contributor at balance (that's why they have match makers) plus - unbalanced champions ARE addressed. LOL would be an even worse example - the game has 150ish champs but the game developers literally tell you they are only concerned about competitive for like 30 of them. I can tell you from personal experience LOL is not in a good place for balance - but it is a 5v5 team game where the game designers deliberately tell you to pick the OP champs lol and even with OP elements - there is nothing more OP than cooperation.

I mean - if GW came out and said - "if you are interested in competitive play - you should just avoid playing space marines and necrons and instead play an Imperial gaurd brigade with knight support or eldar soup because those are the only 2 factions we think should be strong" then I think they could make statements like "The game is in a good place because this is exactly what we are going for". The problem me and lots of people have is. GW appears to be trying to balance the game with CA and Errata but are utterly failing and they make statements like the game is in a good place. Heck no it's not. Half the units aren't even addressed. Units like warlocks go up in price while a command russ goes down. A strike marine still costs more than a DW marine with a storm shield and storm bolter. Bad armies are still bad - good armies are still good. This isn't exactly rocket science ether.

 Melissia wrote:
To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.

Aye, both in terms of balance and time, 1500 feels like the sweetspot for 8E. 2000pts opens up too many support options for the big abuseable things, and clearly has trouble managing time at events. I think a move back towards a smaller game size would help a lot.

Wayniac wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.

No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.

They both should be compromising (or playing a different opponent, I guess) which is a lost art?

There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game

But this goes back to the whole "Why should I have to discuss anything beyond asking if they want to play a game, and then points/mission?" question from before. People don't *WANT* to have to discuss anything. They want to roll up to the store, presumably approach someone else who also is at the store with a 40k army, and go "Hey want to play?" and then just say a couple of words re: the points cost, maybe what mission (EW/Maelstrom/ITC/etc.) and then just start unpacking and setting up the board. No other talk necessary unless it's to declare targets or announce rolls. I would be surprised if these people even made smalltalk with the other person.

Or, I suppose alternatively, already arranged a game with someone via social media and have even less discussion because you already said 2k points Eternal War days before you got to the store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
The game is fine if you play 2K point ITC games.

Other people play other games and it might or might not work. Who cares? There is a state where the game works, and they ignore it. That is their problem.

Are you seriously indicating that ITC is what makes the game "fine" and that everyone should play that deviate state? Even though said deviate state is the exception and not the norm?

I mean, that's the equivalent of going into a nonladder StarCraft game and getting mad when you are rolling newbs without much effort, and are wondering why you can't get much tournament practice in.

You need to establish what you want out of *any* game, it's just that in videogames these are discrete options that you choose. These options exist in meatspaxe tabletop games as.well, but you choose them thru dialogue instead of clicking... So... I guess if you don't want to choose to talk, don't, but then you refuse any right to be upset if it's different than what you wanted?

 Horst wrote:
All I can offer is anecdotal proof, but my local GW does everything by points too. Escalation league he's hosting goes up by 500 points a month, using Matched Play rules. Every game I've played there has been matched play. He's hosting an Apoc game next month using Narrative Play rules with PL, but that's Apoc, and to be expected.

Every time I've played someone from a different store, it's been matched play rules. Everyone who used to play earlier version uses points with matched play rules, since that's the way we're used to. he new PL system looks like a poor substitute for that to me, honestly, and I'm sure I'm not the only player who remembers previous versions to think that way.

I hate to speak for people but this is so obvious. Every store has a few people that suggest using power level but analytical players at the store explain to them it is a much worse version than points and there is no point in using them because battlescribe means you don't even need to do math to make an army. Open play is different. I don't believe many peoples go to game is Open play but most people would be open to play narrative play just the the "SNG's". Then their are gonna be some people that just play Apoc but Apoc is basically match play at like 5k+ points. To say that match play is the majority of games is pretty much on point for all 3 of the shops I attend....Yeah...There are 3 game stores in my area that support a 40k community. There is consensus between them all. If you set up a game and don't say anything about the game parameters - it's matched play 2k points.

If there is a state where the game works, and you don't play that state.. who is at fault?

Reemule wrote:
If there is a state where the game works, and you don't play that state.. who is at fault?

When that "state" is basically "houserule the game and then only play that houseruled version of the game", then the game's fault?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.

MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?

Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.

The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?

Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.

This is an excellent post and anyone with experience in competitive gaming beyond tabletops, I'd imagine most people but I don't know, should be able to recognise the truth in this statement.

Magic is a bad example. Magic is balanced by core sets specifically. The sets are not made to be balanced against each other. It would be like playing 3rd eddition 40k vs 8th eddition. Bad example. Overwatch? OMG. It's a 1st person shooter - Skill at the game is going to be the greatest contributor at balance (that's why they have match makers) plus - unbalanced champions ARE addressed. LOL would be an even worse example - the game has 150ish champs but the game developers literally tell you they are only concerned about competitive for like 30 of them. I can tell you from personal experience LOL is not in a good place for balance - but it is a 5v5 team game where the game designers deliberately tell you to pick the OP champs lol and even with OP elements - there is nothing more OP than cooperation.

I mean - if GW came out and said - "if you are interested in competitive play - you should just avoid playing space marines and necrons and instead play an Imperial gaurd brigade with knight support or eldar soup because those are the only 2 factions we think should be strong" then I think they could make statements like "The game is in a good place because this is exactly what we are going for". The problem me and lots of people have is. GW appears to be trying to balance the game with CA and Errata but are utterly failing and they make statements like the game is in a good place. Heck no it's not. Half the units aren't even addressed. Units like warlocks go up in price while a command russ goes down. A strike marine still costs more than a DW marine with a storm shield and storm bolter. Bad armies are still bad - good armies are still good. This isn't exactly rocket science ether.

Absolutely this. It's the fact GW says they are balancing, and they may be trying, but they are failing miserably as a result of always being months out of date to any changes that they decide to make, coupled with a seeming complete lack of understanding WHY things are problems, just kneejerk reacting to things that they see "too much of" (nebulous term) at big tournaments who are already playing a houseruled version of the game anyway. And then they claim it's in a good spot when swathes of the game remain unviable due to the consistent and apparent (to everyone but them it seems) issue of Soup + CP farming.

They are either being completely dishonest, or are ignorant.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Drager wrote:
I'm just putting this here so I remember to come back to it. I'm going to play this out with a firend of mine later. I'll take the Marines list (1 patrol, Lieutenant, 2 squads of Marines built as on the box (Missile Launcher and Plasma Gun) and an assault squad to get to 500) he'll take the knights (Crusader with Sainted Ion and Ion Bulwark). I'm not a marine player, but I am a tournament player, whilst may mate does play Knights, but only casual so it should be interesting. We'll be playing a random CA 2018 mission so I'll report back later.

I'm curious about the results.

I'll wager a sock without a match that it's over in turn 3.

We played it out now and I'll write it up and post a proper report later, but it was a close game with the marines ahead through most of it, if the game had ended on turn 5 they would have won, but the Knight took it by a point on T6. We're going to do another scenraio with the same armies later in the week and see how that plays as it was really fun.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.

Aye, both in terms of balance and time, 1500 feels like the sweetspot for 8E. 2000pts opens up too many support options for the big abuseable things, and clearly has trouble managing time at events. I think a move back towards a smaller game size would help a lot.

Managing time at events hasn't been an issue for several months now, at least not on a national level. Chess clocks seem to have resolved the issue. NOVA also has the judges call out mile markers to keep folks moving. Regardless, games seem to be finishing properly at 2k in our only available metric: tournament play.

The big thing about smaller points is you don't just stop what you consider abuse, you hamstring elite armies. Elite armies either need all the points or no points.

As an example, a barebones Custodes battalion is 600+ points. Their main anti-armor platforms, the Telemon and the Caladius, are 272 and 210 points per unit. Jetbike squad is 270. Basically, at 1500 they can't even take all the tools they need to make a TAC list. You just reinforce Jetbike spam as the best potential all-rounder or for them to soup that Guard battalion in so they don't need their own.

Conversely, at 2k points they can take those things. At 500 Custodes are near broken: you can take 3 Jetbike Captains for 480. Almost nothing can touch them in a 500 point game and they're ObSec. Even if you impose Rule of 1, you still get a Jetbike Captain, an Infantry Squad and a Caladius. It's totally busted.

Except at 2k they can just toss in the cheap guard command point battery without much impacting their list compared to how much it impacts the list when you'er at 1500.

 Melissia wrote:
Except at 2k they can just toss in the cheap guard command point battery without much impacting their list compared to how much it impacts the list when you'er at 1500.

it's the other way around. At 2K they have the freedom to bring their own detachment of custodes for a battalion. at 1500 the guard battery becomes mandatory because they can't fit their own with everything else

ITC doesn't really change much. I usually just play to table (everyone is trying to do that anyways) the only difference is you just try to hold more objectives than they do so you can get more points. Then you take the secondaries that give you the most points....usually it's going to be 2 killing secondaries or possibly 3.

The big difference with ITC is guaranteed LOS blocking. It does improve the game a lot. This is more of an issue with people having absolute crap terrain options. The ITC rule basically fixes that in the most simple way by saying...these things that don't block LOS actually do.

To be fair, xenomancers, that does help balance out the power that shooty armies have a bit more compared to the apparently abundant situation of almost no terrain on the board.

Audustum wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.

Aye, both in terms of balance and time, 1500 feels like the sweetspot for 8E. 2000pts opens up too many support options for the big abuseable things, and clearly has trouble managing time at events. I think a move back towards a smaller game size would help a lot.

Managing time at events hasn't been an issue for several months now, at least not on a national level. Chess clocks seem to have resolved the issue. NOVA also has the judges call out mile markers to keep folks moving. Regardless, games seem to be finishing properly at 2k in our only available metric: tournament play.

Primarily because of the introduction of a significant number of elements and constraints that don't otherwise exist in the game rules and require a much more active role of event staff than may otherwise be required, and, much like the Custodes example below, causes issues with outlier large model count armies.

The big thing about smaller points is you don't just stop what you consider abuse, you hamstring elite armies. Elite armies either need all the points or no points.

As an example, a barebones Custodes battalion is 600+ points. Their main anti-armor platforms, the Telemon and the Caladius, are 272 and 210 points per unit. Jetbike squad is 270. Basically, at 1500 they can't even take all the tools they need to make a TAC list. You just reinforce Jetbike spam as the best potential all-rounder or for them to soup that Guard battalion in so they don't need their own.

Custodes are an extreme outlier case, one that will likely cause issues with almost any proposed change, same way Chess clocks can hit large model count armies.

That said, many Custodes list are and have been quite successful without a Telemon or Caladius, those only got 40k rules relatively recently, and at 1500pts you can fit in two Caladius, a Jetbike squad, the minimum battalion, and still have some wiggle room to play with.

They just dont get to have two jetbike squads and a CP battery to boot at the same time like they would at 2000pts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?

GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.

For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.

That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.

The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I made no mention of whether I think the Castellan is broken or not. You do realise it's possible for two different things to be responsible for broken balance? Both soup and individual units can be at fault. Unless you're on the internet, I guess, where everything has to be reduced down to the simplest explanation possible.

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?

GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.

For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.

That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.

The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I made no mention of whether I think the Castellan is broken or not. You do realise it's possible for two different things to be responsible for broken balance? Both soup and individual units can be at fault. Unless you're on the internet, I guess, where everything has to be reduced down to the simplest explanation possible.

It's a case of people complaining that an army can contain multiple broken units (Castellan, Infantry, and Slamguinus/Jetbike Captains), and then blame allies.

The actual problem is an army being able to contain even one unit that's broken. Literally any army could use Scatterbikes last edition if they wanted, for example. Tyranids, CSM, even Necrons could use them!

 Melissia wrote:
To be fair, xenomancers, that does help balance out the power that shooty armies have a bit more compared to the apparently abundant situation of almost no terrain on the board.

It protects shooting armies from shooting armies too. The main thing is it helps off set the Igygo system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?

GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.

For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.

That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.

The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. I made no mention of whether I think the Castellan is broken or not. You do realise it's possible for two different things to be responsible for broken balance? Both soup and individual units can be at fault. Unless you're on the internet, I guess, where everything has to be reduced down to the simplest explanation possible.

It's a case of people complaining that an army can contain multiple broken units (Castellan, Infantry, and Slamguinus/Jetbike Captains), and then blame allies.

The actual problem is an army being able to contain even one unit that's broken. Literally any army could use Scatterbikes last edition if they wanted, for example. Tyranids, CSM, even Necrons could use them!

The biggest issue is obviously units that are too powerful. Allies just allow you to get a lot more of those units at once AND allow you the fuel to use them to full effect.

My solution would be. Give every army equal access to CP via making you start with high CP and losing CP for additional detachments and more for allied detachments. Fix broken units (the good and the bad). I doubt allies would be an issue at this point - they would still be used though to plug weaknesses in armies - it's just going to cost you CP - not give it to you.

I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...

However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system

chaos45 wrote:
I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...

However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system

I’m sorry but this idea is terrible. Allies aren’t the problem. Through 12 pages there have been many references of how powerful certain mono codex are. Tau. Dark eldar. Genestealer culf. Chaos marines (daemon Primarch edition), astra militarum, Craftworld Eldar.. I’m sorry if your particular army doesn’t fall under the “mono codex army that is good against even soup” list. Wait a few Edition’s and maybe it will. Now here is another problem, let’s say you went to 10 cp each. I lose none for going ynnari right? As ynnari is a faction keyword. It’s basically taking all three Aeldari codex and making one. So now that we know that, ynnari would get no negative impact. Now let’s say you wanna ignore the fact that it’s one faction. I start with 2 less or something? So 8? I barely use 8 as ynnari.. my word of the Phoenix is gonna be what destroys you. Do you wanna nerf that too? So then the army is nerfed to the ground. Is your intention to nerf armies to being unplayable in hopes it makes yours playable competitively? And it you don’t play competitive, then this whole this is ridiculous anyway

The problems with the current CP system are threefold.

1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.

2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.

3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.

Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.

If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The problems with the current CP system are threefold.

1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.

2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.

3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.

Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.

If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).

They did cap ivul saves to 4++. On Tzeentch. Because they saw that people were abusing it...

That's why I've been arguing that getting off RIS even once is broken.

The whole Knight codex needs a rewrite though. It's got some amazing ideas but some really bad execution.