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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
40K is likely the only game that offers such a wide variety of list building choices and they suffer for it.

Yeah. If only the Force Org Chart meant something and you couldn't just add more slots of whatever you want for virtually no actual cost...

It certainly needs some attention. Some armies simply don't care about the imposed "tax". I almost feel like the cost of all strats should double. Less use - more care in spending CP.

I would consider 40k limited in variety in list building because of the FOC limits which is also a reason for the bad balance
the variety comes from the many available units, not from the list building possibilities, as faction with limited choices in the slots suffer from it and don't have any variation

if there is only 1 support, elite, assault unit there is no variation, while other games would let you take 1 support for each troop or similar and give much more freedom in list building
those games just have less units, so don't need to balance an infinity amount of possible lists against each other

40k has a legacy limitation of units from 3rd, which was a balance tool to avoid spam-lists but at the same time needed to be handled carefully as it could mess with faction balance (as if 1 faction has good units in all slots, but another all good units in 1 slot the faction balance was off even if points and rules were identical)

this problem was solved by adding more different charts to chose from, but only for those factions that already had enough choices

I think there should be one FOC, and that it should scale with the pre-existing 4 game sizes. Adding additional slots should be possible beyond that, but only for hefty CP costs (ie. you're spending an abstracted strategic resource to requisition something beyond the normal scope of your army, the exact kind of thing CP/strats are meant to represent, rather than y'know, which tank gets to fire its smoke launchers this turn).

Then the "Armies of Renown" concept could be expanded on a Codex basis (rather than herpy derpy DLC books) to allow for the more specialised forces (Ravenwing, Iyadnen, Armoured Companies, Seeding Swarms, Air Cav, Speed Freakz, etc.).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It certainly needs some attention. Some armies simply don't care about the imposed "tax". I almost feel like the cost of all strats should double. Less use - more care in spending CP.

Wouldn't that just result in what people were doing by the end of 8th: Just ignoring most of the strats and saving the few points they had for the most effective ones, which in a lot of cases was just the command re-roll, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the strat system as no one had enough CP to make use of the 3 fething pages of strats that each book has?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there should be one FOC, and that it should scale with the pre-existing 4 game sizes.

Out of interest, what becomes of Dark Eldar in this system?

(Since they're currently built with a requirement of 2-3 detachments just to function like a normal army.)

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there should be one FOC, and that it should scale with the pre-existing 4 game sizes.

Out of interest, what becomes of Dark Eldar in this system?

(Since they're currently built with a requirement of 2-3 detachments just to function like a normal army.)

Didn't they loose HQ options or something? I mean DE used to operate using the old FOC, from 3rd through 6th prior to Formations. Seems like DE ought to be FOC-able again then.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there should be one FOC, and that it should scale with the pre-existing 4 game sizes.

Out of interest, what becomes of Dark Eldar in this system?

(Since they're currently built with a requirement of 2-3 detachments just to function like a normal army.)

"Before building your army, pick one set of special rules for your respective kabal, wych and coven units. This applies to all of relevant units."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there should be one FOC, and that it should scale with the pre-existing 4 game sizes. Adding additional slots should be possible beyond that, but only for hefty CP costs (ie. you're spending an abstracted strategic resource to requisition something beyond the normal scope of your army, the exact kind of thing CP/strats are meant to represent, rather than y'know, which tank gets to fire its smoke launchers this turn).

Then the "Armies of Renown" concept could be expanded on a Codex basis (rather than herpy derpy DLC books) to allow for the more specialised forces (Ravenwing, Iyadnen, Armoured Companies, Seeding Swarms, Air Cav, Speed Freakz, etc.).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It certainly needs some attention. Some armies simply don't care about the imposed "tax". I almost feel like the cost of all strats should double. Less use - more care in spending CP.

Wouldn't that just result in what people were doing by the end of 8th: Just ignoring most of the strats and saving the few points they had for the most effective ones, which in a lot of cases was just the command re-roll, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the strat system as no one had enough CP to make use of the 3 fething pages of strats that each book has?

So I want to riff on this a bit.

First of all, since most of the posters here only play 2k games, you are used to always being able to include up to 3 detachments in an army. Most of us don't do that, because we always have to pay CP for the other two detachments, even if they are Patrols/ Battalions/ Brigades. Instead, we do our best to cram as many units as we can into the one detachment that is going to refund its CP cost.

We're also used to having quite a few CP- I think you get 12 for a 2k game? Or is it 9? I haven't actually played a 2k game yet.

But in 25PL games, you're only getting 3 CP (plus one per turn), so swapping a Patrol for a Spearhead leaves you with nothing- and in a 25PL game you're only allowed to include a single detachment.

At 1k points, or 50PL you can take up to two detachments, but you only get 6 CP- so if you want to include a second detachment, sure you can, but its going to cost you half of your CPs if you do... So again, most of us don't.

Onslaught is bonkers- up to four detachments, and enough CP that taking two is very feasible... But how many of us are actually playing onslaught?

Detachments are also important for organizing the components of your army- Like if you're playing Dark Angels, you want detachments instead of a single FOC, because you can organize the army into Ravenwing, Deathwing, Greenwing... So it's fluffy. If you're not playing 2022 CA Matched, this can also be a way to keep the subfactions of your army organized as they would be in an actual deployment. I'm a Crusader, and I have three Orders of Sororitas on my planet- the OoOML are the defenders of the Church, the Sacred Rose protect and maintain the Schola Progenum Facility and the Bloody Rose are responsible for the Penitent Legion. Most often, these forces deploy in their own 25PL armies.

But when there are larger threats, they can combine, and when they do it isn't just for the benefit of rules that you want to keep them in their individual detachments- you want to do it because that's the story of how they would fight. The Warlord would coordinate with the commanders of the other two detachments, and every soldier in the army would take orders from HER specific commander, based on the agreed upon battle plan.

If the detachment system creates imbalance in competitive play, fine- go ahead and change your matched play rules to whatever you want them to be. It doesn't matter to me, because matched play as a whole feels like a tire fire to me. But leave Crusade alone, because detachments are storytelling tools that help me understand the relationships between the units in my armies and the way their command system functions. A single FOC doesn't allow me to capture the intrigue that can occur between detachments when you're building a narrative campaign. So for example, a GSC corrupts one Senior Officer. That's going to mean that the GSC can exert influence through that officer... But only upon the detachment to which that officer belongs. See? Fluff. How do you do that with a single FOC no matter how balanced a game experience it provides?

And I've seen it said in other posts that 40k doesn't scale. And certainly, it doesn't scale as well as it could and certainly improvements are possible. But table size, number of secondaries/ agendas, detachments and CPs very much DO scale. So messing with any of those systems undermines the scaling that IS present in the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Never said I piloted anything to success, but, well, I have people with names like "TJ Lannigan" and "Sean Nayden" in my local meta, so Ive certainly seen what an actual competitive meta looks like and what actual competitive players do, so... theres that.

You in the Northeast, too?

Yep, north Jersey.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't that just result in what people were doing by the end of 8th: Just ignoring most of the strats and saving the few points they had for the most effective ones, which in a lot of cases was just the command re-roll, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the strat system as no one had enough CP to make use of the 3 fething pages of strats that each book has?

Hmm? I don't think so. 8th was the CP smorgasbord. Some Custodes lists start with 1CP. Pushing the costs up means they're forced to make sacrifices. Even someone who now starts with 8 could start with 4 and instead of being able to do four things might only be able to do two.

It would cut down on the ability to push a lot of power into strats.

I think a change like that would hurt armies with better units more even if it hurts everyone at the same level. It would certainly change my decision making.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think there should be one FOC, and that it should scale with the pre-existing 4 game sizes. Adding additional slots should be possible beyond that, but only for hefty CP costs (ie. you're spending an abstracted strategic resource to requisition something beyond the normal scope of your army, the exact kind of thing CP/strats are meant to represent, rather than y'know, which tank gets to fire its smoke launchers this turn).

Then the "Armies of Renown" concept could be expanded on a Codex basis (rather than herpy derpy DLC books) to allow for the more specialised forces (Ravenwing, Iyadnen, Armoured Companies, Seeding Swarms, Air Cav, Speed Freakz, etc.).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It certainly needs some attention. Some armies simply don't care about the imposed "tax". I almost feel like the cost of all strats should double. Less use - more care in spending CP.

Wouldn't that just result in what people were doing by the end of 8th: Just ignoring most of the strats and saving the few points they had for the most effective ones, which in a lot of cases was just the command re-roll, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the strat system as no one had enough CP to make use of the 3 fething pages of strats that each book has?

So 7th edition FoC? Combined arms+Formations?

Nope. Firstly the 7th Ed FoC didn't scale. It was always the same. Secondly formations weren't separate FoCs, they were just free rules + free rules with an extra side of free rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. Firstly the 7th Ed FoC didn't scale. It was always the same. Secondly formations weren't separate FoCs, they were just free rules + free rules with an extra side of free rules.

You're not entirely wrong. I do think though some of the formations were fun and just that the large ones were lame. I'd have proposed 1 Formation per CAD you had.

Yeah I'd say that Formations as a concept, and some of the execution, was quite positive.

Some though. . . . Wow. Never again.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah I'd say that Formations as a concept, and some of the execution, was quite positive.

Some though. . . . Wow. Never again.

For example, I LOVED the CSM for the Terminator Annihilation Force. Give your Chaos Lord the relic Flamer (I can't remember the name anymore) for fluffy goodness. The 1st Company for Loyalist scum going in to focus on a dangerous target in particular? Awesome.

Some were just stupid though. Eldar getting free BS5/WS5 was silly.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. Firstly the 7th Ed FoC didn't scale. It was always the same. Secondly formations weren't separate FoCs, they were just free rules + free rules with an extra side of free rules.

Depending on Army that was true. The Ork ones were just trash.

So, not gonna lie. Saying this "game" is improved by balance, and that GW is interested in that concept, is about as "head in sand" as you can possibly get. If we go by facts alone, this entire premise is easily dismissed.

1. GW has heavily ratcheted up the imbalance since day 1, between non-9th factions, and 9th factions.
2. GW has spent all of 9th drip feeding content and rules to consumers.
3. GW created a style of gameplay in 9th that favored cheap spamable "CORE" units on objectives.
4. The majority of factions in 40k did not know what units had OBSEC for the majority of this edition.

Given these 4 statements lead us to two possible logical outcomes.

1. GW is completely incompetent at making a balanced game, a game they've been making for the past 20+ years.

OR

2. GW doesn't care at all about balance, and this is simply the best possible way to keep the neck beared pay pigs slavering at the tough every month when they ring the dinner bell and promise that the next batch of slop will have more "balance".

The fact this forum exists is proof of this concept. Why do you think GW didn't announce Chaos Marines are now 2W each? Because they knew if they could keep you arguing on forums and reddits for 2 whole years, you'd be first in line to anger buy the dumb book when it drops in the middle of 2022.

It would have taken literally a single sentence on the FAQ page.

But you know what's more important than balance?

Fixing Multi-meltas
Fixing Necrons
Fixing Sisters point issues
Fixing op DE
Fixing misprinted weapon loadouts for SM captains
Making Custodes Cost less
Racial Justice! (Agree with this one)
Just Say NO to Nazis! (Agree with this one)
Ork Codex mistakes
Ork Nerfs
Scions were worded wrong somehow
Custodes need clearer wording
GSC day 1 codex re-write
NIDS

SQUATS!
And now, in April 2022, we are finally told, 3 years after release, that Chaos Marines are finally getting the 2 Wound buff.

But yes, Balance is a BIIIIIIIIG Priority for GW.

And the farts from my mud cave are whats keeping Abadon in the Eye of Terror.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah I'd say that Formations as a concept, and some of the execution, was quite positive.

Some though. . . . Wow. Never again.

For example, I LOVED the CSM for the Terminator Annihilation Force. Give your Chaos Lord the relic Flamer (I can't remember the name anymore) for fluffy goodness. The 1st Company for Loyalist scum going in to focus on a dangerous target in particular? Awesome.

Some were just stupid though. Eldar getting free BS5/WS5 was silly.

I though WS BS 5 encouraging more Aspect Warriors was one of the good ones, personally. #DidntPlayEldar either

IMO the force org/detachment system is completely gak.

Forcing players to bring bad models (troops) in an attempt for some sort of balance is completely idiotic.

Make the amount of copies of each datasheet you can take be on the datasheet itself

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Forcing players to bring bad models (troops) in an attempt for some sort of balance is completely idiotic.

That's not a problem with the FOC. That's a problem with the Troops.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Forcing players to bring bad models (troops) in an attempt for some sort of balance is completely idiotic.

That's not a problem with the FOC. That's a problem with the Troops.

with both IMO, but yeah, fixing troops (aka : delete them) would make the game better.

Delete them, you say?

So no more...

1. Gaunts.
2. Guardians
3. Tactical Squads/Intercessors.
4. Imperial Guardsmen.
5. DE Kabalites/Wyches.
6. Firewarriors.
7. Regular Custodes.
8. Chaos Space Marines.
9. Sisters of Battle.
10. Skitarii.
11. Bloodletters/Plagebearers/Daemonettes/Horrors.
12. Plague Marines.
13. Rubric Marines.
14. Ork Boyz.
15. Necron Warriors.
16. Genestealer Hybrids.

Just delete 'em all, hey?

Yeah... I don't think you've thought this through.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah I'd say that Formations as a concept, and some of the execution, was quite positive.

Some though. . . . Wow. Never again.

For example, I LOVED the CSM for the Terminator Annihilation Force. Give your Chaos Lord the relic Flamer (I can't remember the name anymore) for fluffy goodness. The 1st Company for Loyalist scum going in to focus on a dangerous target in particular? Awesome.

Some were just stupid though. Eldar getting free BS5/WS5 was silly.

I though WS BS 5 encouraging more Aspect Warriors was one of the good ones, personally. #DidntPlayEldar either

Some Aspect Warriors were already REALLY good though, and just gets overlooked because Wriathknights and Scatterbikes. Chaos Terminators were just fairly good (as were Van/Sternguard). Both Formations were heavily limiting as well for unit choice compared to the Aspect Shrine.

Warp Spiders were a War Spider problem, not a Formation one though. That's the salient point here, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Forcing players to bring bad models (troops) in an attempt for some sort of balance is completely idiotic.

That's not a problem with the FOC. That's a problem with the Troops.

with both IMO, but yeah, fixing troops (aka : delete them) would make the game better.

That's a spicy take. I vote NO on deleting troops.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Warp Spiders were a War Spider problem, not a Formation one though. That's the salient point here, imo.

Hard disagree. Fire Dragons, Dark Reapers, and Spears (though some say I would be overreacting with the latter) were all silly with the extra BS too. Eldar shooting was just that good, period. Those things are just overlooked because if the even BETTER shooting otherwise, Warp Spiders not counted!

Also the lack of requirements for that broken a benefit were badly written. At least Skyhammer made you use the bad Assault Marines, but MAN imagine if they were competent.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Being able to skew something in the first place can be an issue, or part of the issue.

you litterally just said that even with a limit of 3 of each model, you could still bring 24 tanks lol. And now youre blaming squadrons for skew?

Because it's unlikely that all those kinds of tanks are good or OP. If one specific tank is OP and you can field it 9-12 times that's a problem. So both tank based lists would be skew but the one with more variety should likely be less problematic.

It's the same concept about ork buggies. I loved the patch since it prevents players from spamming the best buggy countless times but still allows lists that are heavy on buggies. 9 scrapjets + 9 squigbuggies were an abomination, but something like 7-9 buggies of 4-5 different kinds is cool. I wouldn't mind lists that are heavy on tanks, just not the same tank spammed countless times. Which conveniently is always the best tank, and justified with fluff reasons.

SemperMortis wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. Firstly the 7th Ed FoC didn't scale. It was always the same. Secondly formations weren't separate FoCs, they were just free rules + free rules with an extra side of free rules.

Depending on Army that was true. The Ork ones were just trash.

Free rules doesn't automatically mean good rules, though - it just means you're probably not going to see the ones with "bad free rules" used as often.

Well some were free, some required junk units.


We in effect traded free rules for required units to stratagems for required units with less restrictions on specific units. So free rules to free rules.

SemperMortis wrote:
Depending on Army that was true. The Ork ones were just trash.

Necrons didn't even get one from memory. Or was that 8th edition specialist detachments? Or both?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You're not entirely wrong. I do think though some of the formations were fun and just that the large ones were lame. I'd have proposed 1 Formation per CAD you had.

Wouldn't have done much to the most problematic ones. You'd just see a Loyal 32 situation. Take the minimum amount of units in the CAD and then maximise your Formation units. Something like the free SM transports, you'd probably just go from 600 points of free Razorbacks. To 400 points of free Razorbacks.

Jarms48 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Depending on Army that was true. The Ork ones were just trash.

Necrons didn't even get one from memory. Or was that 8th edition specialist detachments? Or both?

Uh...Necrons were the first to get them, and it was broken. The Decurion was the template for all the formations that followed, to the point where it wasn't uncommon to refer to the rules as Decurion-style army building. Necrons didn't get anything similar in 8th.

Back to Voidweavers - GW will never do this, but maybe the fix is as simple as giving Troupes core and then saying you may only field 1 Voidweaver unit for every 500pts spent on units with the Core keyword. At that point you're investing ~1000pts into Troupes and Skyweaver Jetbikes just to unlock the ability to field 2 units of Voidweavers (which would bring you up to about 1500-1600 pts assuming no price hikes), effectively capping them at 6 max per 2000pt list - and you still haven't bought any HQ/Elites or any Starweaver transports either.

It would force a huge shift/change to Harlequin listbuilding. In practical terms I doubt most Harlequins players would ever actually field more than one unit of Voidweavers after this type of change because it would require way more investment into infantry and jetbikes than many players seem interested in - the sample list on Warcom for example only had 471 pts invested into Troupes, and therefore wouldn't be able to field Voidweavers at all.