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.

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

How does it fix anything? It fixes literally nothing, you'll still have just as many OP and UP units. How does a bigger design space balance anything?

 vict0988 wrote:

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

How does it fix anything? It fixes literally nothing, you'll still have just as many OP and UP units. How does a bigger design space balance anything?

Greater granularity and smaller increments allow for a more room for adjustments. Currently, its difficult to re-stat a unit without letting it step on another's toes.

This goes all the time on sidetracks, please if you want to support this project list the overcosted or undercosted units and i promise i make a compilation of them. I will search for relics and strategems myself as i have acces to them through internet.

This is a start and more than nothing.

All the musings may as well be in this thread but is not what this is all about.


The final attempt would be a seperate pdf or text file. Changes will be light so it is easy to use and the gameplay is unaffected so there is nothing to remember during the game, absolutely zero new things.

If someone is interested i suggest to open a new thread for the one with all the changes (that will probably never be completed)

And my claim is that simple reshuffling of rules, wargear and points is not enough to "balance" the game.

You can houserule to ban the obvious outliers in the game if you dont want new rules and minimal pt change as your "balance".

A list of OP/undercosted unit does not bring about balance, let alone something that remotely resembles it.

 skchsan wrote:
Greater granularity and smaller increments allow for a more room for adjustments. Currently, its difficult to re-stat a unit without letting it step on another's toes.

Re-statting a unit does not balance that unit. Let's say you gave Assault Squads 0,5 extra strength (because +1 Strength would be absolutely insane right...?), this only balances things if the units cost is balanced after the change, cost is literally the only thing that matters in terms of whether a unit is balanced. Cents were bad, they got another wound. But it's still the pts to effectiveness rate that will determine whether they are competitive, not whether they get 0,5 or 1 extra wounds. Stats should represent the fluff or the desired play experience, like how many lasgun shots do the designers think it should take to kill a Tactical Marine, pts is the only thing that determines whether that Tactical Marine is worth it compared to Infantry Squads. You cannot and should not try to balance everything with stats, why not just change the pts and get it over with? Why would you rather keep the pts constant than the rules constant?

The dice system change has to occur in tandem with changes to rules, points, etc.

As I've stated, the move to a new dice system is a START, not end all.

In essence, the 40k system has to be uprooted and start anew. There are companies that make great games and miniatures to go with it. On the other hand, GW makes great miniatures with a poor game. The focal point is just different thats all. They are miniature company first, game developer second.

It might be something to explore balancing mechanisms beyond re-jigging all the stats, because however you change those you're still playing the same 2D game of lethality vs durability. My suggestion would be to make board control more of a thing as that requires lots of bodies, or mobility. Indeed, that's something I like about Maelstrom is that you need to be able to either cover all the objectives with bodies for a nice, wide push, or be able to scootch a fast unit over.

There's plenty you can do with missions to set up balance. Take Maelstrom, for instance. You could have players pick the missions they want to accomplish out of a specific total of VPs. You could structure the board and objectives so that you have specific paths of attack and so on.

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be something to explore balancing mechanisms beyond re-jigging all the stats, because however you change those you're still playing the same 2D game of lethality vs durability. My suggestion would be to make board control more of a thing as that requires lots of bodies, or mobility. Indeed, that's something I like about Maelstrom is that you need to be able to either cover all the objectives with bodies for a nice, wide push, or be able to scootch a fast unit over.

There's plenty you can do with missions to set up balance. Take Maelstrom, for instance. You could have players pick the missions they want to accomplish out of a specific total of VPs. You could structure the board and objectives so that you have specific paths of attack and so on.

This is something I've been thinking as well. Similar to warcry's predetermined map settings, there should be standard maps to facilitate a balanced board.

Honestly, I think 40k is beyond saving. GW have allowed it to be come far too big. There isn't one single issue with it, but rather a lot of issues that just cause more issues when put along side each other.

GW's constant need to add new models/units when ever a faction gets a new codex at the expense of downgrading previous models/units has created a situation where factions now have a lot of bloat in their model line, and worse have models/units that fulfill the same design/role. I started way back in 2nd edition, Marines as they where back then to what they are now is completely out of sync. GW's sales strategy has created a monster over the decades, and this is before we even start on the core game rules.

The core rules for any 40k edition start off with a planned idea, or aim in mind. As the designers produce more content they diverge from that original aim and end up with rules that don't gell well with what has come before. Even the scale of the game is out of whack, we are seeing more and more things that belong in Epic in 28mm platoon/company conflict game... and the random number generator to determine the scales of difference is a D6, all the while we have super sonic jets performing turns around a small battlefield getting automatically hit by flamethrowers. It is ludicrous.

The games scope has been allowed to grow and grow. The designers are doing the best they can to keep the sales department happy and trying to at the very least give a semblance of balance.

TL/DR, 40k is too broken and bloated to be fixed with simple adjustments. The whole thing needs to be gutted and turned into 2 game systems. A game that sticks to the idea of a platoon/company level, and the other which is essentially Epic.

Other than that I suggest people play One Page Rules, or if they want Marine Vs Marine go play Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth... because that system is fantastic at representing that.

 stonehorse wrote:
Honestly, I think 40k is beyond saving. GW have allowed it to be come far too big. There isn't one single issue with it, but rather a lot of issues that just cause more issues when put along side each other.

GW's constant need to add new models/units when ever a faction gets a new codex at the expense of downgrading previous models/units has created a situation where factions now have a lot of bloat in their model line, and worse have models/units that fulfill the same design/role. I started way back in 2nd edition, Marines as they where back then to what they are now is completely out of sync. GW's sales strategy has created a monster over the decades, and this is before we even start on the core game rules....

Right. They should've introduced d8/d10 when they launched Escalation. The ultimate turning point of 40k was when plastic baneblade and valkyries came out.

That won't have changed anything

main problem is that whatever changes are made withing the Core Rules, the faction rules stay the same.

even with adding a D10, the profile of Space Marines would have been the same as with D6

and yes, it is easier to just use a different set of rules and add lists for 40k factions than to try to solve the problems the game has

 skchsan wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

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

How does it fix anything? It fixes literally nothing, you'll still have just as many OP and UP units. How does a bigger design space balance anything?

Greater granularity and smaller increments allow for a more room for adjustments. Currently, its difficult to re-stat a unit without letting it step on another's toes.

I think that's a bit of a trap. On the one hand, you do get more granularity from a D8 or D10 than a D6. On the other hand, 40K already has far more granularity with its current system than many competitors- number of attacks, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, rolling to beat armor, rolling for damage, invuln saves, mortal wounds, and FNP all provide ample design space for varying the lethality and durability of a unit.

The problem is that virtually all the statistics come down to lethality and durability. Being able to insert another value between the current BS4+ for regular humans and BS3+ for elites might add a convenient middle ground for armies like Tau, but it's still just another variation of 'how well does this kill stuff'. You can already balance that with points costs alone.

If 40K had more of an emphasis on mobility, morale, C&C, reconnaissance, reactions, terrain, or other mechanisms outside the simplistic damage/durability paradigm, then that would constitute additional design space.

Games like Team Yankee can be mechanically simpler than 40K while still having deeper design space, because a squadron of IFVs and a unit of infantry behave vastly different from one another, and the way they interact with the board and other units is vastly different despite comparable armament.

Ok here is the first version of this rule set:


UNIVERSAL:
-Everyone may gain Relics through Strategems in the same way as Space Marines.
-All Space Marines from different Codexes = 12 pts


CHAOS SPACE MARINES:
-Space Marine = 12 pts
-Chaos Cultist = 4 pts (in all codexes)
-Possessed: -1 pts
-Rubric / Noise Marines: -1 pts
-Daemon Prince: +5 pts (In all codexes)


DEATH GUARD:
-Greater Blight Drone = 200 pts
-Plague Hulk = 195 pts
-Horticulos Slimux = 185 pts
-Beast of Nurgle: -2 pts


DEMONS OF NURGLE:
-Epidemus = +5 pts


ORKS:
-Stompa: -25 pts
-Relic:Killaklaw: -1 CP


SPACE MARINES:
-Rhino: -2 pts
-Drop Pod: -3 pts
-Land Speeders: -2 pts
-Land Raiders: -3 pts
-Stormcannon Array: +2 pts
-Storm Bolter: +0.5 pts
-Hurricane Bolter: +1 pts


ULTRAMARINES:
-Relic:Seal of Oaths = -1 CP


IRON HANDS:
-Feirros = 125 pts
-Relic:Ironstone: -2 CP


BLOOD ANGELS:
-Sanginius Guard: -1 pts


SISTERS OF BATTLE:
-Battle Sisters: -0.5 pts


IMPERIAL GUARD:
-Conscripts = 3.5 pts
-Vox Casters: -1 pts
-Warlord Trait:Superior Tactical Training + Relic:Laurels of Command = -1 CP


IMPERIAL KNIGHTS:
-Relic:Endless Fury = -1 CP
-Relic:Ravager = -1 CP
-Relic:The Paragon Gauntlet = -1 CP
-Relic:Traitor's Pyre = -1 CP
-Relic:Cawl's Wrath = -1 CP


RENEGADE KNIGHTS:
-Relic:Quicksilver Throne of Slaanesh: -1 CP
-Relic:The Diamonas: -1 CP
-Relic:The Gauntlet of Ascension: -1 CP
-Relic:Veil of Medgengard: -1 CP


ELDAR:
-Army with only Lyanden models gain 1 extra CP for each full 1000 pts of army size.
-Dire Avengers: -0.5 pts
-Exarch: +5 pts


TYRANIDS:
-Genestealers: -1 pts
-Lictor: -2 pts


Eldar changes was said to gain opposition. Conscripts, killaklaw, rubric, noise and Ironstone are my own changes, other changes are kept in minimum at first.

Reason i posted this is to show the direction of this project as a format. This is how its going to be, a light addition to use in optional / friendly games.


About Tyranids: Should Malenthrope be +5 pts ?

When i have watched mant battle reports, Genestealers seems quite underwhelming for their points. They tend to die quickly to shooting. Should they be cheaper for -1 pts ?

What about the other HQ choices ? (Suppose some armies might have some re-roll bubles that are "too cheap" ?)

Are there some equipment or weapon options that are overcosted ?


Next im going through Strategems but somehow im not really eager to do anything there.

@ Amai:

I will tell you that your objective is noble, but ultimately fruitless.

For example. I will tell you, as a primary Guard Player, that Infantry Squads should be 5 points per model, or 50 points per unit, to maybe 55 points per unit. I will say that without motive or agenda. In my experience they're worth at least that.

But I will go one further. Infantry squads *Must* take a Special weapon *and* a Heavy Weapon.

At that point, a squad costs at *least* 65 points. With Las/Plas, they start at about 87 ish points? Don't have my rules handy.

The reason for that, is their footprint. The space they take up on the board has value greater than their basic offensive / defensive capabilities. Without upgraded weapons, they're too cheap for what you get regarding space on the board, but too expensive for what you get regarding offensive and defensive output.

At 4 ppm, their defensive value alone is worth much more than that. Their ability to win through attrition is imbalanced.

But charge 8 points per model base, with free Plasma and Lascannon and suddenly they lose that points / board control imbalance.


But let me tell you, maybe, maybe 1/10 people would agree with my assessment. I'm being generous to myself at that.


I honestly believe what I write here. Been playing 20 years, have lots of experience with Guard and how they play (once wrote a series of lengthy articles about it!) and more so the "unseen" strength of board control and the power of attrition the army possesses. That's very hard to math out to someone. They look at killy vs survival, ignore the mobility / board control.

OR! They overestimate the ability to combine orders... which you cant... so while they can fire a million shots each, get a bonus to cover, or move like the wind... they can't do that all in one turn.

Anyhow... put me down as agreeing more-or-less that an Infantry Squad should be worth about 4 PL... armed however you want... or about 85 points including gear.

No its not, look what i have done.

No one else does anything. Here you have it, first version of the optional point balancing rule set. Feel free to use it or tell me why its bad.

It is based on the public opinion.


That suggestion on the Imperial Guard cannot be done as it contradicts with how the rules work. To do that i would have to change the principle of not altering the rules in any way.

I get you. I’m just saying that if you don’t do that, then in my opinion Guardsmen aren’t balanced.

Per your criteria, A squad of 10 Guardsmen should be 55 points. (Or 5.5 pts per model).

 ewar wrote:
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).

Did we play the same 5E? My memory is one of an edition that was, aside from IG, dominated by a variety of increasingly divergent and expanding marine armies. This was the edition that introduced Chapter Tactics as we now know them, and the greatest number of new marine units and options until the Primaris reboot. I have a very different memory of "dull 5E different colored S4 T4".

There's lots of stuff to rightly hammer 5E for, but I don't feel boring samey marine army options is one of them.

I will list some key features here for another edition where rules changes are acceptable:

-Moving to larger dice capacity (d8/10/12)
-Moving to larger point costs (2-3x)
-All aspects cost points

-Add more statistics to affect the game such as Initiative.
-Make the difference between anti-infantry and anti-tank fire more clear (as it was in the previous editions)


(Based on disicussion on this thread)


PS: It seems that Kodos have some version of customised rules under consctruction ? (So maybe those kind of suggestions could go to him ?)

PSS: About Flamers hitting Flyers, Greching wounding a Dreadnought and so -> Think of it like Winters does, he tends to find a narrative reason behind those things like, Gretching finding an oil pipe from the kneekap and slicing it open when wounding a Nemesis Dreadnought, and Flyer strifing too close to the ground and flying through putrid acid / filt / flame / whatever (as in game the player can keep the flyers away from units with flamers -> Thus representing the ability to change altitudes so they are not going to be hit by flamers in 40k if they really do not want to, its kind of a matter of positioning thats up to player so -> the plane strifing low and getting lit by a 41st millenium flamer weapon could cause damage. The pilots might not be even aware there are flamers around and for some reason they want to strafe low. Maybe to get a better shot over some target or, there is obscuring smoke, explosions, shrapnel or whatever in the air and it is needed to duck in low to hit the target they are shooting at. To picture the game in motion.)

(As in same thing when hitting a squad that is only seen partially from the cover and stuff -> The battlefield is in motion and the models are peeking / crouching / shooting back and so giving opportunity to fire at them and possibly resulting as casualties and of course, some ammunition might go straight through their cover even, or blast the cover to bits that fall on them)

PSSS: I do not know about 40k but in Fantasy Battles at least there were some really strange, overcomplicated and unneccessary rules which have been dropped off from later editions. Still some of the rules are something i like for example, the Fly High rule from 4-5th edition. In the earliest editions there were rules for 3 different "flight altitudes" for flying models and they affected what kind of models can hit what, how good they can hit, how they can move and so. Changing the altitudes also took turns making the flying models quite complicated in the game. One of the top tings that seem strange in 8th edition 40k is the ability to wound land raiders and so with lasguns. That sounds about as ridiculous as it gets and i fail to find a narrative reason for that. At least in 2th millenia warfare i dont think any Armored Carrier or Vehicle is bothered with small arms fire. This could be altered when changing To Wound chart to represent the one in Fantasy Battles -> If Toughness 2x (or was it more than 2x) Strength it cannot wound.

Those early rules are also understandable if thinking that they probably originate from pen and paper kind of RPG environment.

And scouts are so much better than mini marines that it doesnt make sense theyre 2 pts cheaper per model.

Mini marines should be 11 ppm and scouts at 13 ppm fwiw.

Amai wrote:
Ok here is the first version of this rule set

I won't use that or let my opponent use it in its current version. You missed a tonne of OP options, you also buffed options that did not need to be buffed and nerfed options that did not need to be nerfed. When you miss one of the very overpowered options and nerf the slightly OP option, then the very OP option becomes the only option in town and is relatively less balanced because it has even less competition. You haven't done enough research beyond watching battle reports and reading internet forums to reach a level of quality with your balancing that it's better than just playing with the official rules or makes up for being unofficial.

I really urge you to go seek out the lists that are used in tournaments because the Epidiemus nerf is just weird and the only thing I can imagine having happened is some guy mentioning off-hand how he was powerful in one game, the same thing with the Genestealer nerf, I really don't care whether they died quickly in a battle report when they are one of the most popular Tyranid units they shouldn't be buffed before every other unit, if at all.

Amai wrote:
No its not, look what i have done.

No one else does anything. Here you have it, first version of the optional point balancing rule set. Feel free to use it or tell me why its bad.

It is based on the public opinion.

Ok, I'll tell you why it's bad.

The big one: It's a project focused only on pt changes meant to fix an edition where the actual problem isn't pts but rules. Or lack of rules in some cases. The only result possible with this approach is failure.

It's being written up by someone who by their own admission has only played 1 game this century, several editions ago. Who says they don't have access to the current rules & doesn't appear knowledgeable about them. Well guess what? We arguably already have rules written by unknowledgeable people - GW pays them!

Your project is an endless one. The edition will flip before you get anywhere near finishing it.

Nobody does anything? Not true at all. Groups all over the place have changed rules & pts to suite themselves. Even the tourney scenes made changes to missions.

Public opinion? Hardly. You're trying to change pts values based upon the input of a tiny handful of posters on one webstite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Amai wrote:
Ok here is the first version of this rule set

You missed a tonne of OP options, you also buffed options that did not need to be buffed and nerfed options that did not need to be nerfed.

Maybe he's auditioning for a job with GW.

If purpose is to give feedback you should point specifically what you mean when saying something is unneccesary, how can i know and improve the list if you do not do that ?

Yes, atm you people are at a priviledged position in the way i have my focus on this thread. Hope you make the best of it.

Genestealers are like ultra marines.


There is not much else i can do without proper feedback, so without it the project is already finished and the current rules are the final ones too.

I have a feeling that vict could help a lot in this by listing the ones mentioned.

If i would have acces to all of the current codexes i could move further on this myself but as it is im kinda doing this blind and asking for guidance.


Hope this wont create bad feelings in a way one wants to use it and the other doesnt making them argue about it.

Expand the dice range so you can have guardsmen feel aa insignificant against a Custode as they should.

Either drop free chapter tactic level nonsense as it destroys balance or point it accordingly. A Templars Executioner is nowhere near worth what an Iron Hand's is

Amai wrote:
If purpose is to give feedback you should point specifically what you mean when saying something is unneccesary, how can i know and improve the list if you do not do that ?

Yes, atm you people are at a priviledged position in the way i have my focus on this thread. Hope you make the best of it.

Genestealers are like ultra marines.


There is not much else i can do without proper feedback, so without it the project is already finished and the current rules are the final ones too.

I have a feeling that vict could help a lot in this by listing the ones mentioned.

About half of all choices in the game need to be changed by at least 10% pts-wise, I don't have a list off the top of my head, we are talking about a project that's going to take dozens of hours to complete with no way to test it beyond what Dakka thinks of the patch. I'll get back to you when I get further, but it might take 6 months and every time new rules, FAQ or Errata are released things might change or get pushed back.

Just throw the first ones that come to your mind, there must be some as you though of it.

Things should be easy, if it isnt its probably not worth it.

You might start by rebalancing points and stop basing points off Space Marines. Make basic Guardsmen 10ppm and rebalance from there.

Increase granularity by moving to a d12 system. There's no realistic argument based on availability any longer so we can quash that ridiculousness. It would be the easiest manner to convert the basics and create more meaningful differences in the basic stats as well as opposed checks.

Amai wrote:
Just throw the first ones that come to your mind, there must be some as you though of it.

Things should be easy, if it isnt its probably not worth it.

OP units: Intercessors, Infiltrators, Aggressors, Assault Centurions, Iron Father Feirros, Scouts, Eliminators, Invictor Warsuits, Thunderfire Cannon, Repulsor Executioner, Stormhawk Interceptor.

OP wargear: Stormcannon arrays, storm bolters, twin boltguns, hurricane bolters, storm shields (other models).

UP units: Assault Squads, Land Speeders, Land Speeder Storms, Land Raiders (every type), Rhinos, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Terminator Squads (of every variety), Company Champions, Apothecaries.

UP wargear: Dreadnought combat weapons (other models), Dreadnought chainfists, lightning claws (both single and pair), combat shields, grav pistols, grav guns and combi-gravs, flamers.

OP WL traits: Master of Ambush (Raven Guard), Master of Snares (White Scars).

OP Relics: The Ironstone (Iron Hands), Seal of Oath (Ultramarines).

That's first pass on SM, probably a few shouldn't be on any of these lists maybe some of them should be on the opposite list and how far up or down the list each unit and option should be is super hard to say.

 purplkrush wrote:
You might start by rebalancing points and stop basing points off Space Marines. Make basic Guardsmen 10ppm and rebalance from there.

Increase granularity by moving to a d12 system. There's no real argument based on availability any longer so we can quash that ridiculousness. It would be the easiest manner to convert the basics and create more meaningful differences in the basic stats as well as opposed checks.

That's a silly waste of time, you can just make basic Guardsmen 3,8 or 4,7 pts instead of having to inflate everything, nothing wrong with having 1-point increments if you really, really need it. But often you don't, often it's much more imbalanced than that, like the Monolith started out at 381 pts, why? Because 380 was too OP? It was reduced to 320, so clearly not too OP at 381. If a unit is truly OP at 4 pts it can go up to 5 pts and it won't kill it, that's what we saw with Cultists surviving in competitive lists after becoming an extra pt. If it is truly UP at 5 pts it'll be fine at 4 pts.

You're simply not going to have an easier time balancing a more incremental system, it won't happen, you need to start using math, statistics or playtesting you won't suddenly get the feel of the right pts value for units just because they go on a scale with a hundred degrees of separation. Implementing more and bigger dice did not balance Apoc, it's horribly imbalanced because the PL values are off.

381 makes you think its though out even it isnt. Funny but clever.

Using d12 would give you more variety in skill. Using more points of digits as you mentioned could certainly give you more room in pts balance. 0.5 pts have been used as long as i know in fantasy battles (basically with goblin equipment).

In my opinion keeping the poing costs in the same level everybody have used to is good but if there is going to be too much digits the raise would be a good choice.

D2 based warhammer would be hilarious as a game to play drinking, laughing and flipping coins. For one time at least.


Btw what does a decript daccanaut really mean ?

Honestly? GW needs to hire someone like BCB to playtest and proofread their rules if they want even a chance at balance. Fire every single playtester who does the "UGH I CANT BELIEVE THEY WOULD PLAY IT THAT WAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO PLAY LIKE THAT" excuse/eyeroll. The language either allows it or doesn't allow it. If it isn't clear then the instructions are bad. It's pretty hard to balance things if people are playing them differently depending on how you interpret vague language.

Savior protocols is probably one of the better examples for this:
Originally, the rules were vague enough that it was ANY attack and it would be translated into a single mortal wound. This is incredibly strong. Some people argued that attacks resulting in mortal wounds (typically psychic attacks) would treat each mortal wound as an individual attack so 3 MW=3 Drones. Still strong but not nearly as strong as turning smite into 1 MW on a drone. It was then clarified to be only ranged and melee attacks originating from a weapon. (No psychic attacks) Strong with a weakness and most people still assumed mortal wounds required an additional drone (snipers etc) It was then further clarified that additional MW do not require additional drones, but attacks that fail to wound while still causing mortal wounds means you cannot intercept the MW.

None of these clarifications required changing the actual Savior Protocols rules. How do you accurately cost drones if the original rules were vague enough to allow literally all of these interpretations? The first option is OP if drones cost anything less than 15ppm. The last option is strong, but arguably fair at 10ppm given how many things are unblockable by SP. Then, given that almost every Tau unit has access to SP, how do you accurately price their durability with the same vagueness?

Once everyone is playing the same game you can make a pass at balance. Anything before that can be completely destroyed by later clarifications that change the way rules are played without actually changing the text of the rules.

One of the biggest problems with WH is the fact that the include a lot of "free" rules. Sub-faction traits are free rules that are not created equal. Psychic powers are technically free with the psyker, but not all psychic powers are created equal. Same goes for Warlord trait and artifacts.

When those things cost accordingly we can start to cost units more appropriately. Otherwise we are always going to see swings in balance.