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.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think the focus on game rules is a red herring with regard to this.

Careful there, you need a permit to move the goalposts that far.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gladius was fething stupid when it was released.

Double Demi-Co with Company Support? Heck yeah. But it allowed me to compete with Triptide, Wolfstars, Wraithknights and Decurions, so in terms of macro balance I was pretty ok with it. The tide raised a lot of ships in 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I think the focus on game rules is a red herring with regard to this.

Careful there, you need a permit to move the goalposts that far.

Yeah. Fined for assertion rollback, -3 Respect.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Gladius was fething stupid when it was released.

Double Demi-Co with Company Support? Heck yeah. But it allowed me to compete with Triptide, Wolfstars, Wraithknights and Decurions, so in terms of macro balance I was pretty ok with it. The tide raised a lot of ships in 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I think the focus on game rules is a red herring with regard to this.

Careful there, you need a permit to move the goalposts that far.

Yeah. Fined for assertion rollback, -3 Respect.

Which says a lot. You literally needed FREE units. Not just upgrades, like with the AdMech formation (which was bad anyway because "one of every unit!!!1!"). Free units. That always added up to at minimum an extra 350 points (Rhinos were 35 right?).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Which says a lot. You literally needed FREE units. Not just upgrades, like with the AdMech formation (which was bad anyway because "one of every unit!!!1!"). Free units. That always added up to at minimum an extra 350 points (Rhinos were 35 right?).

Rhinos were 35, Razorbacks 55. You needed a 550pt handicap to fight the power lists.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Which says a lot. You literally needed FREE units. Not just upgrades, like with the AdMech formation (which was bad anyway because "one of every unit!!!1!"). Free units. That always added up to at minimum an extra 350 points (Rhinos were 35 right?).

Rhinos were 35, Razorbacks 55. You needed a 550pt handicap to fight the power lists.

I think for one of my lists I did Rhinos for the Devs (keeps the two Grav Cannons safe so they can shoot out the window), two Drop Pods for Flamer Assaults, and then just Grav Spam Assault Cannon Razorbacks.

Rhinos and Pods for me, Firing Grav out the Rhinos and then taking cover behind wrecks. It was bonkers but a lot of fun as an army.

Things like Gladius were necessary because of GW's myopic "the codex is the codex is the codex" approach.

Pity the factions that were never "fixed".

I think these are good changes. I'm not convinced its going to stop Marines being the big cheese - but it might bring them back into some sort of balance, and some things can perhaps be further sorted by CA points changes. (Which is a polite way of me saying Thunderfire Cannons are still a problem pls nerf).

Tyel wrote:
Things like Gladius were necessary because of GW's myopic "the codex is the codex is the codex" approach.

Pity the factions that were never "fixed".

I think these are good changes. I'm not convinced its going to stop Marines being the big cheese - but it might bring them back into some sort of balance, and some things can perhaps be further sorted by CA points changes. (Which is a polite way of me saying Thunderfire Cannons are still a problem pls nerf).

True, but let's hope we don't have to wait for the next ca, there is a big FAQ coming up.

Tyel wrote:
Things like Gladius were necessary because of GW's myopic "the codex is the codex is the codex" approach.

Pity the factions that were never "fixed".

I think these are good changes. I'm not convinced its going to stop Marines being the big cheese - but it might bring them back into some sort of balance, and some things can perhaps be further sorted by CA points changes. (Which is a polite way of me saying Thunderfire Cannons are still a problem pls nerf).

TFCs seem pretty mild compared to other LOSless fire out there, or is this strictly because of the Tremor Shells strat?

It's the tremor shells, which is easily rectified by saying "this can only affect one unit per turn".

 Insectum7 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Things like Gladius were necessary because of GW's myopic "the codex is the codex is the codex" approach.

Pity the factions that were never "fixed".

I think these are good changes. I'm not convinced its going to stop Marines being the big cheese - but it might bring them back into some sort of balance, and some things can perhaps be further sorted by CA points changes. (Which is a polite way of me saying Thunderfire Cannons are still a problem pls nerf).

TFCs seem pretty mild compared to other LOSless fire out there, or is this strictly because of the Tremor Shells strat?

Wyverns cost 22% more, are they worth 22% more? Tremor Shells is a problem when it's a problem and then it's not fun. A Wyvern does about 2 damage to a unit of Intercessors, a TFC does about the same. TFC gets two amazing Strats for free, Wyvern can pay 1 CP for the privilege of having one of those good Strats. TFC can heal vehicles. TFC has better Detachment abilities. Durability favours Wyvern but TFC deals slightly more damage in melee so tagging it costs more.

Most SM Stratagems should be divided into specialist detachments and locked behind a 1CP paywall for every 2-6 Stratagems and then the TFC should get a pts bump of +10 or so pts, but then so should a lot of other things. At least you won't face one with AP-2 D2 or D1 with aimbot past turn 1 any longer.

Hmm. I don't see it as me moving the goalposts as I never intended to only speak about the game rules, but I guess therefore I am off topic in this thread which is only about game rules. In that context, I can see the point ye are making.

Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If you're thinking as far back as AP2 power weapons . . .

Further back, when Power weapons ignored armor altogether.

Exactly! I am not arguing that we should go back to exactly that, but heck banshees were more powerful then and I have yet to see a list with banshees now.

there was a lot to like about the older Morale rules, for example, if those Banshees hit hard enough they could run through an enemy squad, killing them all, and contact another one sticking them in combat via Consolidate or Sweeping Advance. This made Assault potentially much more deadly. Also, no Overwatch. But the main point besides all that was that against Marines on a model to model basis, Bashees still felt somewhat capable. Accepting Primaris as the "New Marine Baseline" makes Banshees look like ultimate chumps, despite being elite warriors with potentially 100s of years of experience.

So much this. The old range has not ported well at all because the rules that made those specialists useful have been removed. Now they are just bad against "raw power" factions like primaris marines.

Having a "simpler" game has resulted in worse balanced game where a lot of flavor has been lost. I insist, I despise the idea of melee being reduced to jump packs, thunder hammers, and getting the gotcha out of your enemy.

Grey40k wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If you're thinking as far back as AP2 power weapons . . .

Further back, when Power weapons ignored armor altogether.

Exactly! I am not arguing that we should go back to exactly that, but heck banshees were more powerful then and I have yet to see a list with banshees now.

there was a lot to like about the older Morale rules, for example, if those Banshees hit hard enough they could run through an enemy squad, killing them all, and contact another one sticking them in combat via Consolidate or Sweeping Advance. This made Assault potentially much more deadly. Also, no Overwatch. But the main point besides all that was that against Marines on a model to model basis, Bashees still felt somewhat capable. Accepting Primaris as the "New Marine Baseline" makes Banshees look like ultimate chumps, despite being elite warriors with potentially 100s of years of experience.

So much this. The old range has not ported well at all because the rules that made those specialists useful have been removed. Now they are just bad against "raw power" factions like primaris marines.

Having a "simpler" game has resulted in worse balanced game where a lot of flavor has been lost. I insist, I despise the idea of melee being reduced to jump packs, thunder hammers, and getting the gotcha out of your enemy.

Ehh, there were big balance issues and "gotchas" in 3rd and 4th too. 40K is more or less the same that it's always been in that you can create as simple or as complicated a game as you want through army choice, list building, mission and terrain set up. And flavor is still here, but it's often just in different places. There are definitely some aspects about 3rd 4th that I miss though.

A bad options, which to work requires your opponent to either play bad or let you use them is not a real option. It is like me saying I can beat someone from a higher weight class and 2 years older, as long as he doesn't defend himself, and doesn't try to attack either.

Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

I disagree. I'm fine with "better options", but I'd like to be able to take, say, a Stompa without actively hamstringing myself.

 flandarz wrote:
I disagree. I'm fine with "better options", but I'd like to be able to take, say, a Stompa without actively hamstringing myself.

I agree with this. Bad options serve no purpose.

Worse than no purpose: they can make a player who really likes a certain model turn away from the game altogether because it's practically unplayable. Back to the Stompa, unless my opponent actively builds not to take it out, it's done in 1 round. 2 tops, and the second round it'll be basically worthless.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is so absolutely bogus, I'd like you to confirm that you're serious and not being tongue-in-cheek.

Reminds me of the existence of and makes me feel sad for the Grav Gun this edition though. :(

 Galas wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

It's a different type of game but I agree with the design philosophy. In 40k terms, having units with varying levels of power puts skill into list building. If all units were equally powerful you could literally pick any legal list and go 50/50 with any other list; you may as well play chess.

Also, it's fundamentally impossible to design only good units for even one army, let alone an entire game. Some choices will always be niche at best if not outright bad.

I disagree with this philosophy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

It really isn't. Before the internet and games where a player didn't need to buy anything more than a rule book, it didn't take very long to figure out what the best class, abilities, spells, etc. if powergaming was your goal In the age of the internet it is even easier.

As much as some people what to believe that low hanging fruit of picking the thing that is completely better than the other thing makes them Napoleon, it really isn't. It is substituting actual skill for putting the game on an easier setting. In games like 40k, they give the impression that one player is better at the game than another when they are basically playing a 5th level character vs. a 3rd level character.

Having trap choices is wasted ink and pretty much the opposite of skill expression. Anyone wanting even something close to a competitive game (as in a game where the winner is a contest, not the colloquial use of it here on Dakka Dakka) are going to straight up easily avoid them leaving them to players that don't really care that much about winning to likely even play well anyways with the occasional player taking them to provide more challenge in winning depending on how much of a trap they are. So often times, trap options are doubling the difference of outcomes since the only ones taking them are the ones not likely to play all that well to begin with.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

It's a different type of game but I agree with the design philosophy. In 40k terms, having units with varying levels of power puts skill into list building. If all units were equally powerful you could literally pick any legal list and go 50/50 with any other list; you may as well play chess.

Also, it's fundamentally impossible to design only good units for even one army, let alone an entire game. Some choices will always be niche at best if not outright bad.

This is nonsense and maybee Males sense for a trading card game but not for a wargame of anykind where the Situation of the battlefield and Personal skill should decide and not if i brought card /x 3 Times...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

It's a different type of game but I agree with the design philosophy. In 40k terms, having units with varying levels of power puts skill into list building. If all units were equally powerful you could literally pick any legal list and go 50/50 with any other list; you may as well play chess.

Also, it's fundamentally impossible to design only good units for even one army, let alone an entire game. Some choices will always be niche at best if not outright bad.

A unit should be bad in some lists.
A unit should not be bad in EVERY list.

A Sloppity Bilepiper is great for Nurgling and GUO heavy lists, but not particularly useful in a mixed-god list with min-sized units of Plaguebearers to hold objectives.
A Spoilpox Scrivener is amazing with Plaguebearers, and not worth it without them.
A list comprised of fifteen different SM Captains won't win anything, even though Captains are a good HQ.

Basically, there can be skill in list-building without any unit being out-and-out BAD.

Moreover, while I'm fine with there being a difference between a tournament-ready, super optimized list and a just generally good list, they shouldn't be THAT severe. I'm of the opinion that, if two players of equal skill go head-to-head, one with a tweaked to the gills and fully optimized list, one with a generally good but not super fine-tuned list, the win rate shouldn't be more than 60/40.

I agree with JNA and would like to add that no one should hafta feel like their favorite army or model is bad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

It's a different type of game but I agree with the design philosophy. In 40k terms, having units with varying levels of power puts skill into list building. If all units were equally powerful you could literally pick any legal list and go 50/50 with any other list; you may as well play chess.

Also, it's fundamentally impossible to design only good units for even one army, let alone an entire game. Some choices will always be niche at best if not outright bad.

Card games are totally different because they NEED to have bad cards to fill the packages and make the good ones actually valuable and scarce. That doesn't apply to this context where you buy whatever you want. I knew you would come with that example, but I didn't wrote it because I tought it was obvious.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Bad options are good game design. There should be some skill in assembling your army and having bad or 'trap' options creates the possibility for skill expression in list creation.

This is wrong at so many levels... All options should have some uses. Not all of them should be equal in all context. But when you put design time into creating something people will pay money to have, and spent time building and probably painting it, that thing should have a place. An utility, and not just to be a trap so people can kid themselves into thinking they are great at list building when most just copypaste lists from the internet.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

It's a different type of game but I agree with the design philosophy. In 40k terms, having units with varying levels of power puts skill into list building.

It's a garbage design philosophy. It may have a business justification in a genre (TCGs) designed to encourage you to spend more to get the randomly-distributed 'good' cards, but it has absolutely no place in serious game design.

Name a successful competitive videogame where the developers deliberately introduce trap options to reward the 'skill' of picking the meta choice. Heck, name a successful non-TCG analog game with that philosophy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If all units were equally powerful you could literally pick any legal list and go 50/50 with any other list; you may as well play chess.

This is only true if
1. You place no value on collecting the army that works the way you want it to or are most comfortable with,
2. You have no skills relevant to the actual game which make your choice of list more effective than one randomly generated,
3. 'Everything is worth taking in some context' actually means 'randomly-generated slapped-together lists are just as effective as ones created with a plan and understanding of strategy', which is simply false.

Most importantly: The fact that perfect design is nigh-impossible does not in any way justify embracing deliberate imbalance so that netlisters can feel like they have credible skill, ESPECIALLY for a game as hobby-oriented as this one.