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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sort off like a downside?
Like restricted units,or higher cost?

Better, forcing certain min units?
Could work.

Almost like... well, I don't want to say "Formations"... but I think Restricted Units would work.

In other words, if you're playing Iron Hands with all the fancy bonuses from the Supplement... you have to use specific units or not take specific units. You have to "play to the fluff" can be the excuse GW can give.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Possible Solution:

What if using the Supplements came with a "tax" of some sort?

There are two possible solutions as I see it;

1. Give every other faction supplement style rules.
2. Remove the supplements from competitive play.

Well I don't see number 2 happening. Everyone whose bought supplements would go nuts. And it doesn't look like gw is going for number 1 based on the ca leeks. More like make everything else cheaper than dirt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sort off like a downside?
Like restricted units,or higher cost?

Better, forcing certain min units?
Could work.

Almost like... well, I don't want to say "Formations"... but I think Restricted Units would work.

In other words, if you're playing Iron Hands with all the fancy bonuses from the Supplement... you have to use specific units or not take specific units. You have to "play to the fluff" can be the excuse GW can give.

Too late you said the F word. Looking more and more like 7th.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Argive wrote:
You and your facts.. and quotes... How dare ye!

What can I say? I RTFM'd.

TIL a relic is a stratagem.

 Argive wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
WS didn't get it. BT didn't get it. THIS time the dastardly scheme will work though!

Yes, they did. And they can use it every round for 1 CP:

The Crusader’s Helm. Add 3” to the model’s aura abilities. Also, at the start of your Movement phase, pick a Black Templars unit with the Combat Doctrines ability within 6” of this model. Until your next Movement phase, the Assault Doctrine is active for that unit, replacing the current doctrine. This is a great way to circumvent the turn 3 restriction that prevents you from achieving your full potential with combat units.

So yes, the dastardly scheme did come to pass.

You and your facts.. and quotes... How dare ye!

See above.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Possible Solution:

What if using the Supplements came with a "tax" of some sort?

There are two possible solutions as I see it;

1. Give every other faction supplement style rules.
2. Remove the supplements from competitive play.

I'd prefer to see point increases on top of turn limited doctrines, but since that's a long timeline then maybe the community needs to push #2 until then.

Shouldn't tournaments be able to decide what supplements are allowed?

If a major tournament feels the need to ban a supplement, it would probably reflect very poorly on Games Workshop, and cause controversy for the TO. It's more of a last resort.

Darsath wrote:
If a major tournament feels the need to ban a supplement, it would probably reflect very poorly on Games Workshop, and cause controversy for the TO. It's more of a last resort.

Many here stateside banned Forge World models for a while.

If tournaments wanted to ban use of Super Doctrines I would be okay with it.

I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.

Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).

The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.

In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.

The thing about tournaments banning anything at all, is that... well, the TO can do that. And if people dislike it, he won't have a good turnout. His tournament, his rules.

Hellebore wrote:
I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.

Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).

The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.

In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.

I agree. This race to the bottom is pathetic.

Hellebore wrote:
I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.

Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).

The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.

In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.

Points cost isn't enough. The MEQ statline would need a complete rework as well. For perfect balance, that 1 guardsmen must equal the output/efficiency of 3 marines which is something GW have never really been able to do

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.

Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).

The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.

In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.

Points cost isn't enough. The MEQ statline would need a complete rework as well. For perfect balance, that 1 guardsmen must equal the output/efficiency of 3 marines which is something GW have never really been able to do

The internal codex balances are all out of whack for all armies. This leads to bigger imbalances between codexes externaly.

I firmly believe the number one reason for poor internal costing is the fact they removed point costs for gear on data sheets and made it so that gear costs the same regardless of what its going on. Which is insane.
Yes the argument is they cost the unit itself proportionally but do they? We can see they clearly dont...

Unit X is over-performing whilst equipped with Gun B due to being very reliable/efficient... Unit X is armed with Gun B? Well lets increase the cost of Gun B, because its clearly too good.

Gun B was also the only way to arm units C,D,E,F. Now those units become even more invalid compared to the over perfoming Unit X.
It means anyone who Run unit X with a different configuration will be shafted if Unit X base point cost is changed.

Anyone running Gun B on any other unit apart from Unit X will be affected also meaning you will have to pick unit X because it's the most efficient.

However if you only increased the cost of Gun B on Unit X but kept Gun B the same price for the rest of the codex that would create a better balance.

Instead, we get this knee jerk points wackamole by someone who appears to be blindfolded..

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TIL a relic is a stratagem.

Well, any day you learn something is a good day. Relics of the Chapter has only been around for a couple years, better late than never.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
I think they just need to readjust the base point cost of everything.

Start with a guardsman at 10pts and work up (only working down rarely like for grotz).

The cost is irrelevant - it just needs to be an accurate comparative value.

In 2nd ed a guardsman was 10pts and a marine was 30.

Points cost isn't enough. The MEQ statline would need a complete rework as well. For perfect balance, that 1 guardsmen must equal the output/efficiency of 3 marines which is something GW have never really been able to do

Perfect balance isn't needed, or even really possible.

But much better balance can be achieved, if GW put the resources towards it.

TIN FOIL HAT THEORY TIME!!!!

What if marines doctrines BS happening because they are looking at the slowly approaching end of 30K and want to sell 40k to the 30k crowd? After all they are used to rubbing marines vs marines for days and have lots of money as they buy FW.

WH old world will most likely be the replacement of 30k in terms of studio focus and 30k is allegedly nearing completion.

They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

Certain things are too powerful regardless of playing ITC or not. Dead units can't hold objectives and armies that can decide what you're allowed to have live by T2 won't care you're doing GW missions or ITC missions.

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?

You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.

The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

Well, that's your opinion, that doesn't make it fact.

You kind of a need a codex designed with a lot of valid options to play the balanced build game. When you have a 2-3 option codex, if a missions changes makes it unable for one of those options to work, it is not like you can take other options, because there are no other options for you to take.

 Ishagu wrote:
. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.

Except that marines can.

EW1 - Basically just hold more of the objectives so you get whichever random one scores more most often, which means just kill enemy units on objectives.
EW2 - A single objective? Marines love this. They don't give a crap about losing invulnerable saves while they swamp it with centurions.
EW3 - Characters are they key points...great...Eliminators solve that.
EW4 - TROOPS control objectives. So they kill all your TROOPS, sit Primaris on theirs, and score more on secondaries of which there is 1 point per round for killing a unit.
EW5 - Models with FLY > TROOPS for control. Great - they'll just kill those models. Control is at the start of the turn so dropping a unit on an objective won't save you.
EW6 - Controlling opponent's objective is worth most, which is not possible against marines so you're fighting for the center and they can kill you better.

There is no dynamic in these missions that can't be solved by marines just killing the right things harder. If you can't push the marines zone of control back you literally have no options.

Alternatively in ITC I can focus on holding - something you do above. I can focus on what units I can remove. The marines will likely hold more and kill more each turn so I just won't worry about that. I can play cagey with units he has targeted for secondaries. I can play to my lists strengths by picking secondaries that don't require killing.

If I wind up forcing them to a low score and capped as many points as I can then I've done well. A win doesn't always have to be a 'W'.

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?

You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.

The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.

They are not. If i kill your army, you arent scoring any ca mission. Killing always works regardless of mission. Especially shooting, because i cant even screen against that.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?

You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.

The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.

They are not. If i kill your army, you arent scoring any ca mission. Killing always works regardless of mission. Especially shooting, because i cant even screen against that.

You haven't posted on the forum about how awfully terrible marines are in a while? Everything ok ??

 Argive wrote:


You haven't posted on the forum about how awfully terrible marines are in a while? Everything ok ??

I blame Martel for the marine power level.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Argive wrote:


You haven't posted on the forum about how awfully terrible marines are in a while? Everything ok ??

I blame Martel for the marine power level.

Now now.
No need to be mean.

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?

You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.

The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.

I'm definitely pro CA18, and yes, in my opinion too they are vastly superior to ITC missions.

But marines are broken in both formats. CA18 is not a cure to that, but makes it worse.

CA18 rewards balanced lists with lots of different units with different purposes, and marines right now are the kings at that.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TIL a relic is a stratagem.

Well, any day you learn something is a good day. Relics of the Chapter has only been around for a couple years, better late than never.

That's funny, my Relics of the Crusade tells me I can take an additional Relic, not that I can skip straight to the Assault Doctrine.

A Relic that allows you to count one unit within 6" as being in the Assault Doctrine is not the same as a Stratagem that allows you to skip to the Assault Phase, like what was being discussed.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Argive wrote:


You haven't posted on the forum about how awfully terrible marines are in a while? Everything ok ??

I blame Martel for the marine power level.

Now now.
No need to be mean.

Only friendly ribbing.