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.

Bharring wrote:

Toss the same points of Iyanden on the table as Iyanden vs same list as Uthwe, and Uthwe wins.
Toss the same points of Uthwe on the table as Uthwe vs same list as Iyanden, and Uthwe wins.

Sometimes, CTs are tradeoffs where different factions are better for different builds. Other times, you have some CTs that feel downright inferior to other CTs in the same book. The common complaint in the SM book seems to be "UM < IH", but there are more obvious examples.

Hence me talking specifically about IH and UM, rather than other things. I entirely agree that the eldar ones could use considerably more thought and I hope even if they don't get splatted out like space marines have they get updated to closer parity.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a trait improving different units for different subfaction, as long as you keep the variance within a reasonable scale of power for a thematic list and limit the more blatant abuses.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Xeno has your complaint transitioned from "Ultramarines are weak, but still the strongest Chapter only because of a crutch Girlyman" to "IH are so absolutely bonkers strong that now I'm sad because my Ultras aren't as strong anymore"?

Which is kinda ridiculous isn't it? Ultras were strong pre codex 2.0 and are only stronger now. You should be happy that your precious Ultras are even more competitive, not lamenting the fact that another Chapter might be slightly more efficient.

Strength means nothing at this point as space marines are the only army to be released thus far in this 8.5 edition of 40k we are in or whatever you want to call it. The only things we have to compare it to are the internal strength between different space marine factions. We are basically back at square 1 again 2 years ago with space marine codex being released first. Remains to be seen what the power level of codex coming out are going to be like. If it's anything like the internal balance demonstrated in this supplements we might as well save our hopes for a balanced edition as GW has failed YET AGAIN. The difference between Ultras and Ironhands compared to 8.0 eddition and 8.5 eddition is laughable. Gman Ultras vs Ironhands a few months ago was a pretty close matchup - currently in 8.5 edition Ultras are obliterated by ironands in an not even close battle.

I have an idea, i know it sounds silly but really, think about it. Why not let both players start?


Xenomancer you do realise they do it on purpose ?

Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.


After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

To do it with seperate chapters and a single relic is enginious as it wont affect anything else in the game and is easy to tune down without touching the core rules.


I give you the ultra doctrine: here it is, re roll to hit rolls of 1 in all 3 doctrines!

Amai wrote:
Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.

After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

The theory that GW designs rules to sell stuff always suffers with running into flops. I mean SM were pretty bad through 8th before this codex and the chapters, so not sure what they were doing there.

Balance is really about getting things *close enough* rather than perfect. This can be achieved through points determining internal balancing (damage output/resilience) and then by vaguely thinking about free stuff.

Chapter specific stratagems should almost certainly go, then tactic, warlord trait and relics could be considered in a pool. Some might be marginally better - but providing its not a massive gap (Alaitoc to "not Ulthwe" being an example - Alpha Legion to Word Bearers is another) things should be close enough.

The issue is less "this isn't mathematically optimal" and more "this is mathematically trash, you should never use this." Chapter Approved moving points around has certainly helped, even if the situation isn't perfect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The idea that you can balance the game with points cost alone is flawed from the start. As long as
1.) There are things that are point free that change the value of units.
2.) Units change value from sub-faction to subfaction
3.) Unit synergies exist

You cannot balance using points alone at least not internal to a specific book.
The best you can do is balance builds from one codex to another based on the strongest possible choices for every unit being made.

No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.

OP:

Amai wrote:
[...]
So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is.[...]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Toss the same points of Iyanden on the table as Iyanden vs same list as Uthwe, and Uthwe wins.
Toss the same points of Uthwe on the table as Uthwe vs same list as Iyanden, and Uthwe wins.

Sometimes, CTs are tradeoffs where different factions are better for different builds. Other times, you have some CTs that feel downright inferior to other CTs in the same book. The common complaint in the SM book seems to be "UM < IH", but there are more obvious examples.

Hence me talking specifically about IH and UM, rather than other things. I entirely agree that the eldar ones could use considerably more thought and I hope even if they don't get splatted out like space marines have they get updated to closer parity.

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with a trait improving different units for different subfaction, as long as you keep the variance within a reasonable scale of power for a thematic list and limit the more blatant abuses.

The attempted frameshift was because we've seen a gakton of talk about IH vs UM, and there's some debate that they're just *different*. IH makes you more durable, better at dakka, etc, but UM lets you "Marine" more - where you shoot, fight, fallback, and shoot. I don't agree with that, but figured comparing two traits both geared for the same thing might avoid those conversations. Perhaps I should have avoided CWE, but the idea was to use a less emotionally-charged pair of subfactions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Gman Ultras vs Ironhands a few months ago was a pretty close matchup

Saywhat?

Pre-new-codex, Gman Ultras dominated the Marine book. It was nearly Tourny-capable. Iron Hands were barely a footnote. Nowhere close.

I do also encourage to do a different approach as a different project where rules are altered as anyone likes.

The way i see this, only couple of units get a slight point change and few relics cost more cp. That is all there is to this. Changing further is for different thread.

The idea is to encourage various play styles and keep the game as it is.

Amai wrote:
I have an idea, i know it sounds silly but really, think about it. Why not let both players start?


Xenomancer you do realise they do it on purpose ?

Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.


After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

To do it with seperate chapters and a single relic is enginious as it wont affect anything else in the game and is easy to tune down without touching the core rules.


I give you the ultra doctrine: here it is, re roll to hit rolls of 1 in all 3 doctrines!

Any sort of "UltraMarines are the Ultra Marine" concept isn't that UltraMarines are the "most powerful"/"most competitive". Fluffwise, it's that they're the "most Marine". Iron Hands might outlast them. Raven Guard might be better at deploying. Sallies might be better with Flamers and Meltas. Imperial Fists might be better at pitched battles.. Blood Angels might be better with a chainsword. But UltraMarines are better at combining it all into a single effective fighting force. They're better at adapting. They're better at using all the pieces together. When they get out-lasted by an opponent, they'll outdeploy. When they get outdeployed, they'll outlast. When they're facing absurd shortrange firepower, they'll besiege the enemy. When besieged, they'll get in close and much things up.

Using the right tool at the right time is a Marine thing. Every chapter does it. UltraMarines do it best.

*That* is what the rules should support for UltraMarines.

(Until the army goes full-Primaris, where "most Marine" simply means "MOAR BETTAH".)

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.
If faction A can only deal x damage on turn 1 with the most obvious combo then faction B should be limited to roughly the same amount of damage. Same can be said for defensive combos in the amount they can reduce damage. It is very simple really. Comparable units should do comparable things. Subfactions should not affect unit stats in any major way ie. Should not increase damage or defensive characteristics in a reliable way. Maybe just give them a special ability.

While not wrong, you have to be very careful not to make your game incredibly dull by removing the synergies from it.

So my 2 cents is start with a 10 point guardsmen to set a precedent for point values. Build up from there, the 10 pppm start point is to make sure there's no single digits point value for models (so maybe a 10 point conscript). It will change the point value we play at, but I think this is where we need to start. I'd also advocate for nothing being free full stop. Lasgun minimum 1 point, maybe a 9 point guardsmen but total is 10.

Ideally then each unit can be looked at on a case by case basis. After a guardsmen we can look at say a guardian. It's got better armour, and BS, etc add X points and so one and so forth. Terminators for example are slower so reduce by X points.

Might not be a perfect idea but that's my though process. At the very least I know people can get behind the 10 point guardsmen for granularity

Please do take that idea further by starting with non forge world imperial guard for example.

So scout sentinel would be around 100 pts and marines around 30 pts.

That will surely give flexibility to alter the points further.


How would command points far in this ? They cost points too ?


To make that work i suppose one would need a thorough understanding of this game.


So granades and armor would cost too.

This reminds me of shrapnel games steel panther where you cn add your own unit entries and run them through a program called cost calculator. Its still unbalanced though as different setups and specialisation results in stronger armies for their points.

Put all options in one unit and end up with overcosted unit. That setup strongly favours spesialisation, so no granades or 6+ armor and only lasgun (10 pts ?) must be more point efficient than with granades, armor and lasgun (12 pts) ?


Btw, if you are really in to it, do a 40k mod for steel panthers. There have been a star wars mod under development for a long time and i suspect it never finishes. I think the game might offer tools to do this even in the free version already.

This would be beat done on n edition with armor values (6th or 5th ?) as steel panther mechnisms work like that already.

Both games are respective kings of their genre.

Amai wrote:



To make that work i suppose one would need a thorough understanding of this game.

The irony is killing me.

Fan made fixes go from the ludicrously op "my favourite faction deserves the best" to the incredibly dull "just make every army a different colour of the same thing". If you like, I can share a codex I wrote when I was 12 for 2nd edition - hint, it wasn't very balanced!

Whatever mud people chuck at GW, they have been incredibly successful at (mostly) keeping the game balanced enough over time whilst retaining the sense of narrative. They do better than all other companies at keeping a middle ground between competitive and casual. I absolutely love the new SM rules for instance, they feel like marines should for the first time in 8th. I would rather play with those rules and self limit on power level, so I the game is fun, than play some dull 5th ed type game of different coloured S4 T4. Can apply this to almost all other factions, since we moved to 8th, as all my armies are more interesting than they used to be (and I have large forces of CWE, Nids, GSC, Ad Mech and Knights).

Share please.

I also think 8ed marines are the most interesting. I also like 8ed as a whole.


What was 2 edition like ? I have read only good things about it.

Amai wrote:
I have seen people write here that the game is unbalanced (in a way it seems like a marketing campain for certain models) and some people do not like that aspect on otherwise great game.

I have also seen a person to say he could rebalance the game but takes no action for it.


So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is. I do not own or have acces to any of the rule books so i cannot fully participate but i take the initiative to suggest this.

I am also aware that tweaking the game usually makes it in fact worse, but i still suggest and hope that instead of endlessly talk about it, rather do something constructive. If this goes to anything i might participate in the future.


One idea would be also to attach custom made material (units, relics, factions, chapters and so) in the same way than forge world models without affecting the core.

Adhering to your restriction of not changing rules, or creating new ones, I do not think it is possible to balance 40k. To be balanced, let alone tactically deep, the game needs a rewrite. Homogenizing the game even more could create balance, but this would require more than points changes, and I wouldn't find such a game fun to play. I think most players would agree with me on this.

The core rules simply are not complex enough to provide a balanced, deep, stimulating experience with a high number of different armies and units.

Ultramarines!

They are the one and you know it.


So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

 fraser1191 wrote:
So my 2 cents is start with a 10 point guardsmen to set a precedent for point values. Build up from there, the 10 pppm start point is to make sure there's no single digits point value for models (so maybe a 10 point conscript). It will change the point value we play at, but I think this is where we need to start. I'd also advocate for nothing being free full stop. Lasgun minimum 1 point, maybe a 9 point guardsmen but total is 10.

Ideally then each unit can be looked at on a case by case basis. After a guardsmen we can look at say a guardian. It's got better armour, and BS, etc add X points and so one and so forth. Terminators for example are slower so reduce by X points.

Might not be a perfect idea but that's my though process. At the very least I know people can get behind the 10 point guardsmen for granularity

I think this is fine and, indeed, was used in 2nd ed.

Imperial guard squads were 100pts for 10 men, marine tactical squads were 300pts for 10.

Back then though, gretchin were basically crappier guardsmen, with S\T 3 so they are close to the same Price.

With them being so crappy now, you probably want to start with their stats as baseline.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
No one is suggesting a "points alone" balance. Synergy should be limited from a rules design stand point.
If faction A can only deal x damage on turn 1 with the most obvious combo then faction B should be limited to roughly the same amount of damage. Same can be said for defensive combos in the amount they can reduce damage. It is very simple really. Comparable units should do comparable things. Subfactions should not affect unit stats in any major way ie. Should not increase damage or defensive characteristics in a reliable way. Maybe just give them a special ability.

While not wrong, you have to be very careful not to make your game incredibly dull by removing the synergies from it.

Here for me is an example of a cool synergy. Tiggy -1 to hit ability combined with +1 T to make a unit tough to kill. It only works on 1 unit and your opponent can just target something else. Plus realistically it has counters - str 10 with rerolls to hit counters it pretty well.

An example of a bad synergy is the eldar quicken ability / combined with 22 inch auto advance / combined with advance and charge stratagem/ combined with the ability to move again after killing a unit from ynnari. Plus protect to make a unit of spears nearly indestructible combined with an on demand -1 to hit and 5+ FNP from fortune...you have here an example of too much synergy. Practically 0 ability to counter as the unit can move 44 inches and charge.

Another bad synergy would be choas ability to shoot twice with multiple buffs going off at once to basically make it 2's with rerolls auto annihilating things...probably twice. Or a smash captain putting out 18 damage 4 attacks for like 130 points and a bunch of CP.

Frankly combos like that ruin the game for me.

To keep things interesting I think armies should have an identity and be better at something based on that identity. For example eldar should be fast and deal death blows...but they shouldn't be indestructible. Ironhands probably should be tougher than your average marine but their tanks shouldn't be THAT much more survivable. It is true that strats and abilities are out of hand - these things need to be reeled in just as much as points need to be balanced for comparable units.

NM

Amai wrote:

So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

Two answers, pick one (or both)

1) The miniatures game YOU like most.

2) Probably Battletech (core game only.)
* Except for a few minor tweaks it's had a mostly stable rule set going on 35 yeas now. You don't get radical shifts in BT.
* It plays well with 2 - virtually any # of players, all in the same game.
* It's affordable - only a handful of the oldest miniatures are expensive. And by expensive I mean about equal to a current 10 man 40k/AoS box.

Battletec seems way worse than 40k based on a quick glance on the quick start rules.


40k is the best. Say it with me i know you want to.

Mordhaim is best, necromunda is beat, old hammer is best. Games workshop rule.

Probably even bfg is best.

ccs wrote:

Amai wrote:

So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

Two answers, pick one (or both)

1) The miniatures game YOU like most.

2) Probably Battletech (core game only.)
* Except for a few minor tweaks it's had a mostly stable rule set going on 35 yeas now. You don't get radical shifts in BT.
* It plays well with 2 - virtually any # of players, all in the same game.
* It's affordable - only a handful of the oldest miniatures are expensive. And by expensive I mean about equal to a current 10 man 40k/AoS box.

Clan mechs OP, and all my favorite Inner Sphere designs aren't in the game anymore because they were stolen. Also designing your own mechs, while fun, super abuseable. Hah!

Also much slower paced game in my experience.

 Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Amai wrote:

So what is the best scifi miniatures battle game ?

Two answers, pick one (or both)

1) The miniatures game YOU like most.

2) Probably Battletech (core game only.)
* Except for a few minor tweaks it's had a mostly stable rule set going on 35 yeas now. You don't get radical shifts in BT.
* It plays well with 2 - virtually any # of players, all in the same game.
* It's affordable - only a handful of the oldest miniatures are expensive. And by expensive I mean about equal to a current 10 man 40k/AoS box.

Clan mechs OP, and all my favorite Inner Sphere designs aren't in the game anymore because they were stolen. Also designing your own mechs, while fun, super abuseable. Hah!

Also much slower paced game in my experience.

Clan Mechs: As I said, core game only. But equal if everyone uses either all IS or all Clan. The OP only occurs IS vs Clan.
Your favorite mechs: Are still in the game, just not their art. Though I think even that's been resolved. (makes no difference though because all your old stuff is 100% compatible with the current. This ain't 40k where the rules completely shift wildly each edition)
Abuseable: Oh sure, you could abuse the design rules. But you couldn't do anything the other guy couldn't. So.... Balanced.
Slower paced: Sort of..... We've always found about 8 mech game takes about the same amount of time as an average 40k game.

Amai wrote:
I have seen people write here that the game is unbalanced (in a way it seems like a marketing campain for certain models) and some people do not like that aspect on otherwise great game.

I have also seen a person to say he could rebalance the game but takes no action for it.


So, i suggest to use this thread to focus or rebalance the game keeping other changes than point cost changes at minimum. So no changing the rules or inventing new ones but to keep the game as it is. I do not own or have acces to any of the rule books so i cannot fully participate but i take the initiative to suggest this.

I am also aware that tweaking the game usually makes it in fact worse, but i still suggest and hope that instead of endlessly talk about it, rather do something constructive. If this goes to anything i might participate in the future.


One idea would be also to attach custom made material (units, relics, factions, chapters and so) in the same way than forge world models without affecting the core.

I bolded that because you have
determined how to balance the game
through points changes

yet you might not have read the book?

again, my idea is USRs tilted in the direction of one faction or another as they apply to that faction.
So everyone would in principle have access to jump assault troops,
but eldar would be really fast and orks would hit really hard.

If one looks at the game from above,
with every faction represented by an oval,
then we should see something of a color-wheel of ovals arranged like flower petals
each partially overlapping with the others in the center.

from this metalevel view, the game can appear balanced
even as each faction has something that others do not.

then, there are things like free stuff with painful rules.
how to interpret and integrate these rules into the flower
without causing an imbalance is work that is left to the hobbyist.

Sure would like to see someone do something but people tend to only talk.

Fantasy battle genre is different in this regard, there is lots of custom rule sets and at least i know none in 40k. I am trying to inspire people to do even one. No matter what kind but i like the original rules as they are, but some units are clearly overcosted like many people say that stompa is for example.

I also suspect that 40k hav always had stronger rule base and balance than fantasy battles and the need for custom rules have only risen recently.

People only talk because no matter how good they did it. No matter how much time placed into us balancing the game. It wouldn't be from GW and would at that point be a waste of time as no one would ever use it. As borked as the system can be, it's a well known game and for most players they will always choose the devil you know over the devil you don't.

Hell we had to have a huge thing over if or not people would even play against legends because GW said they wouldn't recommend them for tournaments. How much hope do you honestly have people would embrace a balance path no matter how good it is unless it comes direct from them ?

Tournaments get away with it because they have popularity and name recognition on their side as being impartial. Random musing from people on the net, no matter how good or well meaning will go no where. That is why people aren't going to work on it in one thread. It's a long term investment that no one will consider.

It's an issue GW should fix but for various reasons doesn't care and so the train carries on and on till the game dies out. I mean, they didn't dream up of a way to save fantasy, they just destroyed it and made it a variation on 40k.

Now I'm not saying 40k is any where near dying, I'm speaking of the inevitable end that all games will face one day.

I would say, as a generalisation, the rules need to be deeper.

A straight move to D12's is easy and basically doubles the functional range of the rules. it's the same as being able to make marines S & T 4.5 with a 2.5+ save.

An increase in general modifiers to hit can be implemented then, without the risk of everything ending up hitting on 6's or 2's. Long range, large target, smoke, cover, fast moving targets, scopes, short range, stealth. An increase in the things that can affect you will allow things to be better balanced. As it is, you get 2 modifiers in the same direction and a "meh" unit which hits on a 4+ is instead hitting on a 2+, the best in the game. Instead, a unit which hits on an 8+ on a D12 (statistically the same as a 4+ on a D6) would be hitting on a 6+ with 2 modifiers, the same as hitting on a 3+ now.

I think modifiers in the To Wound section need to apply as well, with weapons getting bonuses against their designated targets and targets getting bonuses for their defensive measures.

EG Anti-vehicle gets +5 to wound a vehicle, Tank armour dishes out a -3 to wound them (result = +2 to wound a tank with anti-tank guns). Anti-infantry guns get +4 to wound infantry, power armour gives -3 to wound them with anti-infantry weapons, so only +1 to wound marines (whereas guardsmen will get mown down somewhat).


I feel more modifiers and bigger dice would go a long way to making it balanceable. As it is, moving a result by 1 is too much, and some armies can move results by 3 or 4! out of 6 possible results!


Old fantasy acknowledged he need for more range of values - they had a chart for hitting which went up to 11+ to hit! (6+ followed by 2+, 6+ followed by 3+, etc.) Even bringing this back, but centred (EG -1+ to hit through to 9+ to hit) would give 40k room to breathe a little.

You could keep the D6 system if they moved from a failure and success on D6, and use a D6+modifier against a target.
Bring back initiative as a target to beat, with armor a similar stat.
Maybe Feel no pain as a bonus against light weapons ? Not perfect on its own. But possibly a good compromise over switch the type of dice 40k uses.

 some bloke wrote:
I would say, as a generalisation, the rules need to be deeper.

A straight move to D12's is easy and basically doubles the functional range of the rules. it's the same as being able to make marines S & T 4.5 with a 2.5+ save.

An increase in general modifiers to hit can be implemented then, without the risk of everything ending up hitting on 6's or 2's. Long range, large target, smoke, cover, fast moving targets, scopes, short range, stealth. An increase in the things that can affect you will allow things to be better balanced. As it is, you get 2 modifiers in the same direction and a "meh" unit which hits on a 4+ is instead hitting on a 2+, the best in the game. Instead, a unit which hits on an 8+ on a D12 (statistically the same as a 4+ on a D6) would be hitting on a 6+ with 2 modifiers, the same as hitting on a 3+ now.

I think modifiers in the To Wound section need to apply as well, with weapons getting bonuses against their designated targets and targets getting bonuses for their defensive measures.

EG Anti-vehicle gets +5 to wound a vehicle, Tank armour dishes out a -3 to wound them (result = +2 to wound a tank with anti-tank guns). Anti-infantry guns get +4 to wound infantry, power armour gives -3 to wound them with anti-infantry weapons, so only +1 to wound marines (whereas guardsmen will get mown down somewhat).


I feel more modifiers and bigger dice would go a long way to making it balanceable. As it is, moving a result by 1 is too much, and some armies can move results by 3 or 4! out of 6 possible results!


Old fantasy acknowledged he need for more range of values - they had a chart for hitting which went up to 11+ to hit! (6+ followed by 2+, 6+ followed by 3+, etc.) Even bringing this back, but centred (EG -1+ to hit through to 9+ to hit) would give 40k room to breathe a little.

That's not depth, it's complexity. You're forcing a bunch of people to go out and buy several dozen new dice on average for not a lot of actual depth. The rules for 7th melee were complex, but they weren't deep, it basically boiled down to the game taking ownership of your models after you declare a charge, that's shallow complexity because a better or a worse player will have the exact same result. When the difference in effectiveness between using an anti-tank weapon against a Terminator and a tank isn't astronomical it actually creates depth because you have to value whether it might be worth it to go down on effectiveness because one target is more important to the mission or the survival of the army than the average effectiveness of your weapons, if you just boil everything down to rock-paper-scissors it does not become more deep. So it'd be more complex, therefore harder to balance which results in a less balanced experience that is more often decided in the list-building phase, something most people hate. Balance also helps create depth because if a unit isn't so OP that it's good against everything you're actually making more choices. The only grounds for increasing complexity or lowering balance should be for making the game more cinematic, like what you could argue Chapter Tactics do.

 ewar wrote:
Forgive me for saying this, but the OP is being hopelessly naive to think that this could be done in a single thread.

It wouldnt even be done because of OP. If someone does it its because they wanted to, not because they read the OP and thought "Ill give it a shot"

He should have instead asked to if anyone knows any balanced rulesets, not to just make it up on the spot


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Amai wrote:
Reason why iron hands are strong is to sell vehicles. Next chapter is going crazy on infantry i suppose.

After the vehicles have been sold they are going to say ok this was too powerful and tune it down and after that what happens ?

The theory that GW designs rules to sell stuff always suffers with running into flops. I mean SM were pretty bad through 8th before this codex and the chapters, so not sure what they were doing there.

Balance is really about getting things *close enough* rather than perfect. This can be achieved through points determining internal balancing (damage output/resilience) and then by vaguely thinking about free stuff.

Chapter specific stratagems should almost certainly go, then tactic, warlord trait and relics could be considered in a pool. Some might be marginally better - but providing its not a massive gap (Alaitoc to "not Ulthwe" being an example - Alpha Legion to Word Bearers is another) things should be close enough.

The issue is less "this isn't mathematically optimal" and more "this is mathematically trash, you should never use this." Chapter Approved moving points around has certainly helped, even if the situation isn't perfect.

One: SM had the first codex to be released. First codex will always end up being crap when compared to the all the later codexes
Two: GW is a whole is idiotic. Their rules designers. fluff writers, PR team, etc are all insane. They have some kind of weird psychosis and because of it GW can never get anything right. Even when they release a cool model, rules or fluff there will always, ALWAYS be something about it that makes me want to facepalm so hard that I could knock myself out. At this point, its not even just me. I noticed that more and more people are seeing GW for what it is- a company sized meme for failure.

If I didnt like 40k so damn much before they started pushing the story forwards, I wouldnt evem give these guys a second thought

1st step towards balance in 40k as it exists is to move it to d8/d10 system to allow for bigger design space.