"Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place" - GW

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.

**Wayniac**

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).

I usually don't agree with you, BCB, but this is 100% spot on and hits the nail on the head.

**Xenomancers**

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
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

Yeah I'd probably rework every single free activation in the game to something like a 6" extra move or a +1 to hit or wound ability. Shoots twice/move twice/ is just too powerful to even exist. Like I said - it's not rocket science. A unit that shoots twice is like having a free unit.

**Reemule**

Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

**Xenomancers**

Wayniac wrote:
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).
I usually don't agree with you, BCB, but this is 100% spot on and hits the nail on the head.

The power of stratagems is indeed inconsistent. It isn't however related to the power of units using the stratagem. IT is literally a random chance that a unit stratagem combo is at a high power level.

**Pain4Pleasure**

Xenomancers wrote:
Pain4Pleasure wrote:
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

Yeah I'd probably rework every single free activation in the game to something like a 6" extra move or a +1 to hit or wound ability. Shoots twice/move twice/ is just too powerful to even exist. Like I said - it's not rocket science. A unit that shoots twice is like having a free unit.

Power from death doesn’t need to be reworked. Word of the Phoenix does. It could even be something as simple as like warp charge 9, 12”. As far as free units go, ynnari isn’t the only thing that gets to do something for free in the game. If you rework one to be almost not worth doing what so ever, do it to all. For instance, marine bolters when within 12” should hit on 6+ and wound on 6+ only because the marines are probably freaking out due to the fact an enemy is actually that close. See how silly that sounds?

**Tyel**

Seriously though, not buffing the worst chapter tactic in the game is a fail. Word Bearers are the sad.

**Marmatag**

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

**Spoletta**

A 3++ knight is definitely a problem.
It takes out of the meta all the factions that can't deal with it. Just because some can that's not a good reason to leave it like that.

**the_scotsman**

topaxygouroun i wrote:
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...

um....Well, they capped invuln saves to 4++, and +1 to that...which is only not 3++ if you're getting REAL pedantic about it....

What they nerfed was lords of change who could get 2++ saves.

**Xenomancers**

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Pain4Pleasure wrote:
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

Yeah I'd probably rework every single free activation in the game to something like a 6" extra move or a +1 to hit or wound ability. Shoots twice/move twice/ is just too powerful to even exist. Like I said - it's not rocket science. A unit that shoots twice is like having a free unit.

Power from death doesn’t need to be reworked. Word of the Phoenix does. It could even be something as simple as like warp charge 9, 12”. As far as free units go, ynnari isn’t the only thing that gets to do something for free in the game. If you rework one to be almost not worth doing what so ever, do it to all. For instance, marine bolters when within 12” should hit on 6+ and wound on 6+ only because the marines are probably freaking out due to the fact an enemy is actually that close. See how silly that sounds?

I didn't specifically target ynnari - all moves twice and shoot twice abilities should be removed from the game and made more reasonable. I have no clue what you are talking about with marines hitting on 6's...Seems like a pretty bizarre statement where mine actually makes sense. Shooting twice is like having a free unit - because it shoots just like 2 units. Yeah you have to get a spell off to use it on reapers - but spears can often proc it for themselves. Or maybe....move for a 3rd time. The entire Ynnari index needs to be redesigned. Something like old daemonkin where when you kill or lose units you get points you can use to activate certain powers.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Marmatag wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

So what about the Factions that don't have Death Hex or aren't Eldar besides Harlequins?

**Bharring**

"So what about the Factions that don't have Death Hex or aren't Eldar besides Harlequins?"
They can field a 3++ Knight to counter the 3++ Knight. So, each faction has it's thing to counter it!
Eldar: Doom+Jinx
Chaos: Death Hex
IoM: Counter with their own

So it's totally fine.

(Note: yes, this *is* sarcasm about the game devolving into the "Big Three" alliances...)

More seriously, +1 to BCB's post; hit the nail on the head for probably most of what's wrong at the moment in the game.

To expand BCB's answer, though - aside from internal balance, the external balance is also terrible. CWE and Marines (my two armies) are about equally "Elite" - but the CWE stratagems are often much, much better (although not straight upgrades) compared to SM stratagems.

**Horst**

Bharring wrote:
"So what about the Factions that don't have Death Hex or aren't Eldar besides Harlequins?"
They can field a 3++ Knight to counter the 3++ Knight. So, each faction has it's thing to counter it!
Eldar: Doom+Jinx
Chaos: Death Hex
IoM: Counter with their own

So it's totally fine.

(Note: yes, this *is* sarcasm about the game devolving into the "Big Three" alliances...)

More seriously, +1 to BCB's post; hit the nail on the head for probably most of what's wrong at the moment in the game.

To expand BCB's answer, though - aside from internal balance, the external balance is also terrible. CWE and Marines (my two armies) are about equally "Elite" - but the CWE stratagems are often much, much better (although not straight upgrades) compared to SM stratagems.

I've been having fun countering a 3++ Knight with my own 3++ Knights... a pair of Knights Gallant is only 100 pts more, and can deal with it quite easily if you have enough mortars / anti-infantry to clear away it's screening guardsmen. But yea, it's still need a knight to kill a knight for IoM vs IoM. Or Dakkabots... enough of those things will put down a Knight with ease.

Orks can put down a Knight if they take 25 Tankbustas and use Mob Up, More Dakka, and potentially Showin' Off along with Da Jump to get them into position to hit it turn 1.

Most factions have some sort of Answer to the Knight, even if the answer is "go hit it in melee".

**Talizvar**

Marmatag wrote:
And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

I will have to try that out.
I have only one of those guys... I hope it is all I ever "need".
Saw one guy at my FLGS field 3 of those things... I suspect some people have strong opinions about this and his opponents.

I do find that this edition and other additions that have armies "cross-pollinate" with buffs and in this case CP's things get that broken feeling.
Keeping all the various benefits and liabilities of a given army all contained only in that army is the only way to have some semblance of "balance" in my mind.
It is too hard to calculate all the interactions between all army alliances.

**Bharring**

Maybe the game could just use more tools like Death Hex and Doom.

If every faction had a reasonable "Screw you, Superheavy/Deathstar" option or three, maybe deathstars/superheavies wouldn't be so prevelant.

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
Maybe the game could just use more tools like Death Hex and Doom.

If every faction had a reasonable "Screw you, Superheavy/Deathstar" option or three, maybe deathstars/superheavies wouldn't be so prevelant.

Personally - some weapons should reduce the effectiveness of invul saves. Like AP is effective again armor but another stat that reduced invo saves that wasn't often found on the same weapon...That would ad some real depth to the game.

**Bharring**

"Personally - some weapons should reduce the effectiveness of invul saves."
Like Void Zone, Death Hex, or Jinx? (Once again, hillariously, one for each of the "Big Three". Although the IoM one is junk.)

Personally, I'd rather they toned down invuln saves.

**Xenomancers**

4++ max would be excellent.

**The Newman**

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.

That is the complete opposite of the experience I had with Warmahordes.

I played that for a decade before it dried up in my area. I went through a six month phase where I deliberately benched all the good stuff in my army and I even with that I still didn't play more than a handful of games that felt unwinable. A tournament level player with a list chosen by throwing darts at a wall would consistently beat a mid-level player with a tournament-tuned list. We complained about the internal balance but the truth was that there really wasn't that much of a gap between the S rank stuff and the F rank stuff.

40k by contrast has consistently felt like any given game was mostly decided by which two factions were involved, and when the factions didn't give a clear favorite list building was usually the deciding factor. Credit where it's due though; GW is doing the best job of trying to balance the game than I've ever seen out of them. It's still not great, but it's mostly improving over time.

**BaconCatBug**

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Yes, let me just take my Company Commander and punch it to death with a S6 Power Fist /s

**Spoletta**

The Newman 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.

That is the complete opposite of the experience I had with Warmahordes.

I played that for a decade before it dried up in my area. I went through a six month phase where I deliberately benched all the good stuff in my army and I even with that I still didn't play more than a handful of games that felt unwinable. A tournament level player with a list chosen by throwing darts at a wall would consistently beat a mid-level player with a tournament-tuned list. We complained about the internal balance but the truth was that there really wasn't that much of a gap between the S rank stuff and the F rank stuff.

40k by contrast has consistently felt like any given game was mostly decided by which two factions were involved, and when the factions didn't give a clear favorite list building was usually the deciding factor. Credit where it's due though; GW is doing the best job of trying to balance the game than I've ever seen out of them. It's still not great, but it's mostly improving over time.

7th and 6th were worse than warmahordes, i agree, and indeed i played warmahordes during that time (MK2). But now i vastly prefer the balance of 8th.

**Bharring**

"WarmaHordes was very balanced!"
-Mk2 EHaley player

**Ordana**

Xenomancers wrote:
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.

You don't need to play ITC to make the bottom level of buildings block LoS...

**Wayniac**

Ordana wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
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.
You don't need to play ITC to make the bottom level of buildings block LoS...

You don't, but I've seen more than enough people who dislike house rules but consider ITC to be something other than houserule so will use it, while they would say no if you just happened to ask to have the bottom level of buildings block LOS.

**auticus**

Tournament standard house rules are magical in that way.

**Tyel**

Spoletta wrote:
7th and 6th were worse than warmahordes, i agree, and indeed i played warmahordes during that time (MK2). But now i vastly prefer the balance of 8th.

Having done the same I feel it gives you a different perspective.

I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."

**Slayer-Fan123**

auticus wrote:
Tournament standard house rules are magical in that way.

I think the main justification is that, when you have dozens of people attending, you don't actually have to do negotiation. You're already there with the rules in effect, and point levels taken care of. Half the work is done!

**Facisminthe41m**

I'm reallly looking forward to seeing how the new rules being introduced in the upcoming chaos release will eventually find their way into other armies. I would love some Prayers mechanics for my Admech and i'm assuming there will be plenty in the upcoming sisters of battle release. I think it goes a long way to making chaos different from normal space marines which so far has been mostly how many spikes you can put on your minis.

**auticus**

Its that and tournament standard is for many people the real system, so ITC houserules are to many people not really houserules, ITC houserules are real 40k.

**Wayniac**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
auticus wrote:
Tournament standard house rules are magical in that way.

I think the main justification is that, when you have dozens of people attending, you don't actually have to do negotiation. You're already there with the rules in effect, and point levels taken care of. Half the work is done!

The flipside to this is there's a lot of things ITC could do themselves (change how CP works, mandate mono armies, reduce points, etc. not that they should necessarily do any of those things, but I mean they could essentially dictate house rules that would be accepted) that would then be taken as gospel because of events. Yet they don't, while GW doesn't seem to be doing enough to balance again. Maybe it's time for ITC to do it like they had to in 7th and balance the game better than GW themselves.

Ultimately what is pissing me off is that GW keeps doubling down on soup and CP farming. It makes me skeptical if they are actually going to address it despite it being probably the biggest issue in 40k. CP farming and having a cheap CP battery power the "good stuff" being even worse than soup.