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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.

What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.

What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?

Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?

Not sure what you intend to imply? That Havocs with free CC would be broken regardless of Ro3?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.

What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?

Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?

No, no, let's go with this. What's the point cost? Don't just say "appropriate" either. Give me a specific point cost for every single unit in the game that makes it perfectly balanced with every other unit in the game, while also being either spammable or not, with all options individually priced as you see fit. I'll wait.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?

Not sure what you intend to imply? That Havocs with free CC would be broken regardless of Ro3?

Exactly.

So let's say, for a second, they were released before Ro3. Instead of making the appropriate point cost for those units, and Havocs, they slap this fix on and call it a day.

If a unit is mathematically broken, it is broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute before Codex 2.0 was broken and you could only take one of him!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.

What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?

Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?

No, no, let's go with this. What's the point cost? Don't just say "appropriate" either. Give me a specific point cost for every single unit in the game that makes it perfectly balanced with every other unit in the game, while also being either spammable or not, with all options individually priced as you see fit. I'll wait.

I've done homebrew rules before. Even if I posted them you wouldn't bother to reply. To answer your question, I'd probably put a 15 point hike on Commanders and easily 20 for the Wings on a Tyrant, as GW never prices mobility correctly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Exactly.

So let's say, for a second, they were released before Ro3. Instead of making the appropriate point cost for those units, and Havocs, they slap this fix on and call it a day.

If a unit is mathematically broken, it is broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute before Codex 2.0 was broken and you could only take one of him!

Sure, no disagreement, but its a bit of a strawman.

Take Flyrants. Were they broken? Yes. Were they broken after Ro3? No.

So we had AM, Craftworlds, BA all out before LVO '18. CA'17 changed nothing. The pieces for soup and smash captains and ynnari (5 point Dark Reapers, even) were all there. But Flyrants dominated.

Then Ro3 hit. Adepticon '18 did not use Ro3 - dominated by Flyrants.

T'au, Necrons, DE, Custodes, Knights released.

And then Nova '18 - By this time Castellans and Ynnari were king. Flyrants were not to be found. Nothing changed for Flyrants until CA '18 when they went up by 20. This is still when turn 1 deepstrike was a thing.

They were totally capable of over running Ynnari, but at a limit 3? Not to be seen. That tells me they're awesome in large numbers, but struggle to form a cohesive list when you're limited and facing armies with layered strengths and need to bring other units that have distinct vulnerabilities.

It tells me that the Hive Tyrant wings upgrade was seriously undercosted, like character mobility options usually are. Seriously, did anyone ever field a foot Tyrant in a tournament?

 Crimson wrote:
It tells me that the Hive Tyrant wings upgrade was seriously undercosted, like character mobility options usually are. Seriously, did anyone ever field a foot Tyrant in a tournament?

They did not. What is the cost that would still keep it on the table, but not make it over-powered if Ro3 were not in effect? Factor in competition from GSC choices.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Exactly.

So let's say, for a second, they were released before Ro3. Instead of making the appropriate point cost for those units, and Havocs, they slap this fix on and call it a day.

If a unit is mathematically broken, it is broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute before Codex 2.0 was broken and you could only take one of him!

Sure, no disagreement, but its a bit of a strawman.

Take Flyrants. Were they broken? Yes. Were they broken after Ro3? No.

So we had AM, Craftworlds, BA all out before LVO '18. CA'17 changed nothing. The pieces for soup and smash captains and ynnari (5 point Dark Reapers, even) were all there. But Flyrants dominated.

Then Ro3 hit. Adepticon '18 did not use Ro3 - dominated by Flyrants.

T'au, Necrons, DE, Custodes, Knights released.

And then Nova '18 - By this time Castellans and Ynnari were king. Flyrants were not to be found. Nothing changed for Flyrants until CA '18 when they went up by 20. This is still when turn 1 deepstrike was a thing.

They were totally capable of over running Ynnari, but at a limit 3? Not to be seen. That tells me they're awesome in large numbers, but struggle to form a cohesive list when you're limited and facing armies with layered strengths and need to bring other units that have distinct vulnerabilities.

It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.

Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.

Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.

You're not serious are you? The power itself is broken, period, limits or not. Same reason Roboute was broken before Codex 2.0 even though the codex itself was bad, and you can only have one of him.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.

Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.

You're not serious are you? The power itself is broken, period, limits or not. Same reason Roboute was broken before Codex 2.0 even though the codex itself was bad, and you can only have one of him.

Bobby is on another level. Tyrants aren't giant hide-able buff bombs.

If you could take one tyrant at 50 points and "freed" up 150 points for other 'nid stuff you would not struggle to defeat nids.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.

Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.

You're not serious are you? The power itself is broken, period, limits or not. Same reason Roboute was broken before Codex 2.0 even though the codex itself was bad, and you can only have one of him.

Bobby is on another level. Tyrants aren't giant hide-able buff bombs.

If you could take one tyrant at 50 points and "freed" up 150 points for other 'nid stuff you would not struggle to defeat nids.

Bobby is not on another level. You said limits were a balance itself and I picked a pretty darn good example that proved your point wrong. There is a point value where things are not autotake and GW is simply too lazy to do it. You're still going to see max Flyrants or Crawlers simply because of that bad internal/external balance to even attempt to fight better armies.

So the answer is no, 3 Flyrants fully decked out for a total of 150 points is broken. It doesn't matter if you can "hide" them or not.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They did not. What is the cost that would still keep it on the table, but not make it over-powered if Ro3 were not in effect? Factor in competition from GSC choices.

I don't know Tyranids well enough to be able to answer this question, but this doesn't mean is not answerable. A competent Tyranid player could estimate a rough ballpark. Might require testing of course. And they did increase the cost of wings by 20 points, but of course because Ro3 exists, we cannot know whether that would have been sufficient fix for the problem!

The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.

I remember when the Wraithlord was still being "balanced" two editions after it was at its peak of power (3rd Ed).

As for the Flyrant, first they reduced how many you could take and then they went and increased its points as well. Chances are they'll make them worse somehow with the next revision as they scramble to fix something that hasn't been a problem in months.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.

the pendulum swings of power is hardly unique to GW, as anyone whose played a MMO can tell you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bobby is not on another level. You said limits were a balance itself and I picked a pretty darn good example that proved your point wrong. There is a point value where things are not autotake and GW is simply too lazy to do it. You're still going to see max Flyrants or Crawlers simply because of that bad internal/external balance to even attempt to fight better armies.

So the answer is no, 3 Flyrants fully decked out for a total of 150 points is broken. It doesn't matter if you can "hide" them or not.

My impression was one tyrant at 50 points. That's not changing anything. You still can't keep constructing these absurd strawmen and move the goal posts over to prove a point that exists only in this fiction you created.

You also can't be serious that a unit providing full reroll hits and wounds (until recently) with +3CP, a 2+/3++, and a resurrect is comparable to a flyrant that was half his cost and far worse in melee. Bobby was great when he got to buff loads of undercosted units that *cough* didn't worry about Ro3.

There is a point where things are not auto-take...and that's when the internet calls them trash.

BrianDavion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.

the pendulum swings of power is hardly unique to GW, as anyone whose played a MMO can tell you.

Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.

They COULD assess points more frequently, but with almost a codex a month is that always wise or feasible? I doubt they'd dedicate the resources required to do it properly, either.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.

I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.

I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.

No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.

I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.

No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.

LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.

I mean, while yes, situations often occur that make for poor narrative, more often than not, this isn't the case. Even your example is one that many narrative players would find fitting with the whole special ops/assassination theme of the Raven Guard, and remember, while narrative players will probably generally agree about the massive power difference between certain factions in the game (like, I can't imagine that you'll find a player anywhere that believes that Grey Knights are on a par with Iron Hands), remember that we don't feel beholden all of the official attempts at balance. It's really common for players I know to perform their own balancing (or even, dare I say, intentional imbalance) by agreeing to add or remove a big chunk of power level or command points or some such.

Look, I'm not saying the game shouldn't have a more balanced set of rules for competitive play; that would actually be great, and I would love for it to happen, because I wish everyone could enjoy this hobby the way they want to. I'm only trying to explain why I believe it won't ever be balanced: because as poor and all as the rules are for such a play style, most of the rest of us are still enjoying the game enough that we're happy to keep handing over money, and I don't see that as likely to change any time soon.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.

I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.

No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.

LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.

The raven guard stealthily crept up on the ork position and attacked from the shadows so they struck first. So hard to narrative out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole? Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?

I can't believe this needs explaining. You playtest. That's what the designers are supposed to do. GW's biggest problems are a complete inability to playtest properly and an insanely rapid release schedule without any form of overarching plan or guidelines to follow in army design. Combine that with an unhealthy number of different factions and you end up in the mess they are now. Unit limits are not exactly a new concept and other games manage them just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.

I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.

No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.

LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.

While I don't disagree about the rules not being the best for narrative gaming, and I think GW doesn't actually do anything to help narrative gamers, you're missing the point of narrative play completely with this example. A narrative game isn't just a regular Matched Play game with a story bolted on, it's more of a collaborative exercise in creating an interesting scenario or story within the framework of the rules. In practice that usually means players work together to come up with a scenario and lists that will work for their proposed narrative. So if it would ruin the narrative to have the RG steamroll the Ork lines in T1 using thier usual tricks then the players just wouldn't do that. Of course, it's perfectly possible that the scenario and narrative they've created may call for just such a tactic to be used. Maybe the scenario is dealing with how an Ork force responds after the death of its leader and it's not about the Ork player "winning" the game but about how much damage they can do before the RG wipe them out. Or maybe slaying the Warboss merely allows the Orks to promote a Nob to become the new Warboss and the scenario simulates a RG force overextending itself against a green tide as their standard character assassination tactics prove ineffectual against a mob of unruly savages who just want to punch Space Marines in the face.

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

They did not. What is the cost that would still keep it on the table, but not make it over-powered if Ro3 were not in effect? Factor in competition from GSC choices.

I don't know Tyranids well enough to be able to answer this question, but this doesn't mean is not answerable. A competent Tyranid player could estimate a rough ballpark. Might require testing of course. And they did increase the cost of wings by 20 points, but of course because Ro3 exists, we cannot know whether that would have been sufficient fix for the problem!

It's not answerable.

Some units, like flyrants, become better the more of them you have. Mathematically speaking there is no point value where spamming flyrants isn't broken but taking one is still viable. You can either balance them around the concept that they will be spammed, or that they will be restricted in numbers. You either make them cost more points the more you have, or you simply cannot do it with a flat point cost.

Spoletta wrote:

It's not answerable.

Some units, like flyrants, become better the more of them you have. Mathematically speaking there is no point value where spamming flyrants isn't broken but taking one is still viable. You can either balance them around the concept that they will be spammed, or that they will be restricted in numbers. You either make them cost more points the more you have, or you simply cannot do it with a flat point cost.

I am super sceptical that this is actually the case. And even if it was, there only needs to be limitation for such unit, not all units. Cal them Rare Units, or something. Ro3 applies only to them. And actually, as battlefield roles basically mean nothing these days, I think it would be much better idea to remove them, and sort units into rarity brackets instead. I think AOS does something like that.

Slipspace wrote:

I can't believe this needs explaining. You playtest. That's what the designers are supposed to do. GW's biggest problems are a complete inability to playtest properly and an insanely rapid release schedule without any form of overarching plan or guidelines to follow in army design. Combine that with an unhealthy number of different factions and you end up in the mess they are now. Unit limits are not exactly a new concept and other games manage them just fine.

You answered your incredulity right there. It doesn't matter if they do playtest well, because they'll never have time to, office politics will reign, and snap judgments will be made. The release schedule is far too fast, but its what we want, isn't it? Can you imagine how the community would feel if have the books were still on index?

Now we have to see what GW does now that the books are done...so far...not good.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

It's not answerable.

Some units, like flyrants, become better the more of them you have. Mathematically speaking there is no point value where spamming flyrants isn't broken but taking one is still viable. You can either balance them around the concept that they will be spammed, or that they will be restricted in numbers. You either make them cost more points the more you have, or you simply cannot do it with a flat point cost.

I am super sceptical that this is actually the case. And even if it was, there only needs to be limitation for such unit, not all units. Cal them Rare Units, or something. Ro3 applies only to them. And actually, as battlefield roles basically mean nothing these days, I think it would be much better idea to remove them, and sort units into rarity brackets instead. I think AOS does something like that.

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Dudeface wrote:

Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.

Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.