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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The SM stuff, yes.

CSM is actually in the place where the game should be -- some cool traits, some fun stratagems, not trying to stack 3-4 layers of rules interactions on top of each other to break the game.

I understand SM envy but that's a design misstep. Too many rules interactions becomes like playing solitaire instead of move-countermove which is the path to fun and interactive design.

Fun and interactive?

I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.

The Iron adherring of IGOUGO, even though kt proved that Gw is capable of designing an decent Alternative system or apocalypse for that manner.

It was clear, sm needed a boost. Dex 2.0 alone would've made for a good enough boost.
Instead we got the full insanity with supplements aswell.
Just like 7.5 th edition.
Rules galore.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Lots of new HQ options? You're not serious are you?

I was talking about the relics, warlord traits etc.

I know it's not much to CSM players (and certainly not what was needed) but it's still infinitely more than DE got.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes, half the traits and stratagems for build a FUNCTIONING fething BASE TRAIT.

Sounds good?

If you're comparing them to SMs, sure. But they're already in a class of their own.

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Lots of new HQ options? You're not serious are you?

I was talking about the relics, warlord traits etc.

I know it's not much to CSM players (and certainly not what was needed) but it's still infinitely more than DE got.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes, half the traits and stratagems for build a FUNCTIONING fething BASE TRAIT.

Sounds good?

If you're comparing them to SMs, sure. But they're already in a class of their own.

I meant in exchange.
You get half that stuff that is in PA 2 adapted and we get build a cabal etc with working traits copied over for csm.

The whole stratagem system is gak.
Atm there are probably more unit and equipment types locked behind stratagems that should ever be.

Ard boyz, grenadiers, aa missiles etc.
All things that should be options as units or equipment, not this utter nonsense

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.

There's too many Heavy Support choices on the board. Go back to 2 minor HQs, 3-4 troops, a Terminator Squad, some jump assault and a Pred/Dreadnought and you have pretty much the sweet spot for 40k. Unless of course you want to experiment with fun new units the're introducing, or deploy all your nicely painted toys at the same time, which is also totally valid and I'd never look down upon.

Competitive play needs to be a lot more restrictive. That's the reality if you want want balance. No named characters and no new units or new rules that are entering the meta. If you prioritize balance you don't get to play with every broken new toy GW throws at you because there's a fun new rule or model they're introducing. It's really not that complicated. And you're not allowed non-standard terrain either.

Sound fun?

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.

There's too many Heavy Support choices on the board. Go back to 2 minor HQs, 3-4 troops, a Terminator Squad, some jump assault and a Pred/Dreadnought and you have pretty much the sweet spot for 40k. Unless of course you want to experiment with fun new units the're introducing, or deploy all your nicely painted toys at the same time, which is also totally valid and I'd never look down upon.

Competitive play needs to be a lot more restrictive. That's the reality if you want want balance. No named characters and no new units or new rules that are entering the meta. If you prioritize balance you don't get to play with every broken new toy GW throws at you because there's a fun new rule or model they're introducing. It's really not that complicated. And you're not allowed non-standard terrain either.

Sound fun?

Considering the non functional terrain rule for a wargame gw provides for 40k.

I doubt it.

And yes probably restricting or even going back to the old FOC would probably solve alot of issues.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Lots of new HQ options? You're not serious are you?

I was talking about the relics, warlord traits etc.

I know it's not much to CSM players (and certainly not what was needed) but it's still infinitely more than DE got.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes, half the traits and stratagems for build a FUNCTIONING fething BASE TRAIT.

Sounds good?

If you're comparing them to SMs, sure. But they're already in a class of their own.

I meant in exchange.
You get half that stuff that is in PA 2 adapted and we get build a cabal etc with working traits copied over for csm.

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah, I'd be good with that.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Considering the non functional terrain rule for a wargame gw provides for 40k.

I doubt it.

NOVA is running standardized terrain and I imagine the rest of the competitive scene is going in the same direction.

The way to balance games is to prune them to the bare essentials. Fighting six variations on one mission around the same two L-shaped walls is what competitive play is about. But of course nobody wants to look soft by saying they're "not competitive". Fluff bunny is a derogatory term, isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No more Daemon Weapons ATM but here are more CSM leaks.

Night Lords Relic (Jump Pack): 2+ save, model always counts as being in cover

Iron Warriors Relic (Mechatendrils): 4 attacks at S1 AP-, Mortal Wound on hit in addition to attack sequence

Alpha Legion WL Trait: May target characters with ranged weapons. Unmodified wound rolls of 6 become Mortal Wounds.

Yoyoyo wrote:

CSM is actually in the place where the game should be -- some cool traits, some fun stratagems,

CSM are the only army in the game to have a trait that negatively impacts them. Seriously why even play Word Bearers? You might as well just play Black Legion, and their trait is borderlne worthless as well.

Chirst how could anyone think the CSM codex, which only has competitive successes based off of horrible soup lists, is a good basis for anything?

Fun is the ultimate buzzword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean considering 8th sofar and the huge emphasis on alpha Strikes, size creep, etc.

There's too many Heavy Support choices on the board. Go back to 2 minor HQs, 3-4 troops, a Terminator Squad, some jump assault and a Pred/Dreadnought

If Terminators, Assault Marines, Predators and Dreadnoughts can be made worthwhile, that wouldn't be good bad.

Competitive play needs to be a lot more restrictive. That's the reality if you want want balance.

This I can agree on.

No named characters

Why not?

and no new units or new rules that are entering the meta.

Why not?

If you prioritize balance you don't get to play with every broken new toy GW throws at you because there's a fun new rule or model they're introducing.

Why not?

Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?

It's really not that complicated. And you're not allowed non-standard terrain either.

Sound fun?

The terrain rules are like a page long iirc; I don't think we've ever used them.

But if it brought about an actually balanced game, yes it would be fun.

 blood reaper wrote:
CSM are the only army in the game to have a trait that negatively impacts them. Seriously why even play Word Bearers? You might as well just play Black Legion, and their trait is borderlne worthless as well.

It's pointless, he thinks the game is an RPG, like a GM is going to be standing around adjudicating 'fun' or setting up scenarios of his fan-fiction narratives that you battle out.

It's a waste of your time.

Alpha Legion relic is useless as what are you gonna shoot with?

Night Lords relic rocks hard.

Iron Warriors one is good until you realize you need to get the Warpsmith into melee. Yeah right.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Alpha Legion relic is useless as what are you gonna shoot with?

Night Lords relic rocks hard.

Iron Warriors one is good until you realize you need to get the Warpsmith into melee. Yeah right.

The Night Lords relic is nice, except that you're playing Night Lords.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Alpha Legion relic is useless as what are you gonna shoot with?

Night Lords relic rocks hard.

Iron Warriors one is good until you realize you need to get the Warpsmith into melee. Yeah right.

The Night Lords relic is nice, except that you're playing Night Lords.

Well they might get a reworked Trait.

Otherwise yeah you're absolutely right.

 blood reaper wrote:
Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?

It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.

Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.

Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.

Iron Warrior's relic seems lame, only because the Warpsmith is a terrible model that barely sees play as it is, let alone one you want to get into combat.

Also reworked Trait, hahahaha you know as well as the rest of us that's not happening for a few years, at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?

It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.

Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.

Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.

The thing is though, people treat 40k as a competitive wargame. Therefore, it is (whether or not it should be) and should be treated with regard to that, which is what GW consistently ignores. That cat is out of the bag and has been for years, but GW isn't capable (or doesn't care) about really focusing on that aspect.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?

It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.

Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.

Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.

We aren't asking for absolute perfect balance and no mistakes ever.

We're asking them to actually try and do their best and maybe think once in a while.

That isn't a lot to ask for I don't think.

Wayniac wrote:
IThe thing is though, people treat 40k as a competitive wargame. Therefore, it is

Dude, some people treat vaccines as some conspiracy foisted on them by a nefarious government. Thinking something doesn't make it so.

If people WANT a competitively focused version of 40k? It's not impossible but stop thinking you can simply integrate every new hotness GW pushes on you and start developing a format where you actually prioritize competitive balance over marketing and pay-to-win. You 100% cannot have it both ways.

The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.

Which is what I expected.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.

Which is what I expected.

no suprise there, most relics are re-works of relics from past editions. the IF relics are all from the old IF 3rd company supplement, all the Black Legion ones are mostly relics taken from the BL supplement etc.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.

Which is what I expected.

If thats the case I´m eagerly awaiting the return of Kor'Lath, Axe of Ruin. Man that relic was great.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?

It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.

Except games like Dota manage this just fine though by having periods where new content is playtested, evaluated and altered before actually being released into the competitive sphere. If GW actually playtested, this would be possible.

Any company that was serious about competitive balance would NEVER make the decisions GW has made regarding SM Codex 2.0. You're introducing sweeping changes that don't favor all factions, with no intention of correcting them in the short-term. You've got to border on pathological to think 40k is somehow intended as a competitive wargame. Once again -- terrain, points, etc. You can't accurately balance armies without some kind of objective control for this. What points value should 40k always be played at? What terrain setup should 40k always be played on? These are things that are very important if you're serious about establishing game balance.

Exactly, that's why you don't do that - it's fething stupid. If you're going to introduce these changes, you do so universally, or you don't at all. It's a shallow cashgrab and it's been meet with near universal revile, even by the players of the armies who upgrades!

Think about chess. Same board, same units, highly competitive and more or less perfectly balanced. Not much roleplaying aspect though. If you don't care about theme and setting, but the pure distillation of competition with no random factors and no imbalance to mar your victories? It's infinitely superior.

Yeah but I don't want to play chess (chess is also not perfectly balanced, white has an statistical advantage iirc). The thing is wargames like Flames of War and Bolt Action have (or had) strong competitive scenes; they're far from perfect, but they're flavorful and are far more balanced than 40k. I do not expect perfect balance; I expect better balance, and I am not interested in roleplaying because it is not rewarding.

 blood reaper wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Wouldn't it just be better for GW to actually write balanced rules? Why is it that you're trying to construct some kind of black and white fallacy situation in which wanting a balanced game is boring?

It's not necessarily boring, but if you're serious about competitive balance your priority is on making the game a showcase for player agency. It's not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a game because there's risks to that. Any time you introduce new content, you will upset game balance and introduce potential problems into the metagame. That's something that's to be anticipated, it's inevitable. You are never going to anticipate every rules interaction. Human are imperfect so I think saying "why doesn't GW not make mistakes" is more than a little unrealistic. What's realistic is drawing limits on the number of ways that players can break the game, so it's possible to fix it relatively promptly and keep competitive players satisfied that things are fair.

Except games like Dota manage this just fine though by having periods where new content is playtested, evaluated and altered before actually being released into the competitive sphere. If GW actually playtested, this would be possible.

ok I admit to having never played DOTA (I'd rather shove Bamboo under my finger nails then play MOBAs) but I've played a LOT of video games, and can think of plenty of balance issues that are even worse then what I've seen in this game.

 SicSemperTyrannis wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.

Which is what I expected.

If thats the case I´m eagerly awaiting the return of Kor'Lath, Axe of Ruin. Man that relic was great.

Which one was that?

 Dysartes wrote:

 SicSemperTyrannis wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The night lords relic is a rework of stormbolt plate. It looks like most of the relics are probably just going to be updates of ones from traitor legions.

Which is what I expected.

If thats the case I´m eagerly awaiting the return of Kor'Lath, Axe of Ruin. Man that relic was great.

Which one was that?

It was the one from the Khorne Daemonkin Codex that spawned a temporary Bloodthirster when the bearer died. Ascend the bearer to a thirster through the Blood Tithe System and you got two Thirsters. Fun Times

 blood reaper wrote:
Except games like Dota

40k is not DotA, man. Standardized map, standardized units, standardized game size, and only one tactical objective in the game. That's the core they balance around.

Further to that -- DotA wasn't made by a company and released with the intention of competitive play. It grew out of the WC3 custom map scene somewhere around 2005 and was mocked as some skill-free diversion from the actual 1v1 melee scene on ladder. It caught on not because of balance but because it was unique and fun and people enjoyed it, while existing side-by-side with the WC3 campaign and other custom games like Uther Party. I'm sure there's some lesson here in all that.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Except games like Dota

40k is not DotA, man. Standardized map, standardized units, standardized game size, and only one tactical objective in the game. That's the core they balance around.

All of those factors are ultimately irrelevant to the point I was making, as was the rest of your post (which managed to leave out the bit where Dota 2, regardless of intent, has become one of the most competitive games on the planet). The argument I was making was that Dota, and other games have periods in which new content is restricted to non-competitive game modes where it can be playtested by the community, feedback can be given and the material can then be moved into competitive zone once it is deemed to be fixed. 40k would benefit massively from this sort of thing.

 blood reaper wrote:
The argument I was making was that Dota, and other games have periods in which new content is restricted to non-competitive game modes where it can be playtested by the community, feedback can be given and the material can then be moved into competitive zone once it is deemed to be fixed.

Sure dude. I agree with you on that completely.

Let the ITC and oher tournament organizers have their mission format, terrain format, and a list of what rules and units are approved for strictly competitive play. Outside of that, you can play around with whatever new craziness GW has released and amped up to 11 so the rules generate interest in the models. It's really that simple.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
The argument I was making was that Dota, and other games have periods in which new content is restricted to non-competitive game modes where it can be playtested by the community, feedback can be given and the material can then be moved into competitive zone once it is deemed to be fixed.

Sure dude. I agree with you on that completely.

Let the ITC and oher tournament organizers have their mission format, terrain format, and a list of what rules and units are approved for strictly competitive play. Outside of that, you can play around with whatever new craziness GW has released and amped up to 11 so the rules generate interest in the models. It's really that simple.

Yeah, and once that content has been playtested and such, it can be moved into functional 40k. It isn't hard; and with luck it will see all these curazhy new units GW puts out can be made into usable models, rather than models that GW Community tells me are good (or 'fun' or 'awesome' or 'fluffy').

All of the Daemon Weapons now revealed:

Daemon Weapons: roll a D6 at the start of the fight phase, on a 1, suffer a mortal wound. 2+, fight as normal.

Q'OAR the Boundless: Tzeentch power sword, Hellforged sword, force sword only.

- S user, AP -3, D d3, Abilities: Ignore invulnerable saves.

Thaa'Ris and Rhi'Ol, The Rapacious Talons: Slaanesh model with twin Lightning Claws or two malefic talons

- S user, AP -2, D 2, Abilities: Re-roll wound rolls, when resolving the D6 roll for the Daemon weapon ability, if you roll a 2+, you can make that many additional attacks (Like Abaddon's Sword).



Zaal, the Wrathful: Khorne model with power sword or Hellforged sword.

- Profile on the Community Page

C'Holl L'Ax, Fist of Decay: Nurgle model with power fist

- Profile on the Community Page

Ul'O'Coa, the Black Axe: Model with Power Axe, Force Axe or Daemon Axe

- S User, Ap 0, D 1, Abilities: Every unmodified wound roll of 4+ does a mortal wound in addition to any other damage.

Those Slaanesh claws can turn a Daemon Price(ss) into an absolute blender. Yowch!