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.
I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/16 16:56:19
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Not necessarily, they could restrict the amount of shooty models one can deploy by reducing unit sizes and putting ranged units in the same role slots. They could also use the sub-faction objectives to favor melee units.
There are other ways to incentivize melee without forcing shooty units to be subpar.
EDIT: Also wow but I just realized that was basically a slap on the face on all Bad Moons players. That's an entire subfaction whose lore is about it being all about the dakkadakka. Hell dakkadakka is an ork coined term.
Are we sure these designers even read the lore?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/16 18:50:41
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
Tyran wrote: I wonder if Space Marines vehicles are so bad because Space Marines are not intended to be a mechanized faction.
It sounds almost and dumb and horrendous but maybe? They're often depicted via drop off/drop pods/teleport, very rarely are they in novels being taxi'd about for any real length of time.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
Not necessarily, they could restrict the amount of shooty models one can deploy by reducing unit sizes and putting ranged units in the same role slots. They could also use the sub-faction objectives to favor melee units.
There are other ways to incentivize melee without forcing shooty units to be subpar.
EDIT: Also wow but I just realized that was basically a slap on the face on all Bad Moons players. That's an entire subfaction whose lore is about it being all about the dakkadakka.
Hell dakkadakka is an ork coined term.
Are we sure these designers even read the lore?
I mean, to be fair, you can love something all you want and just not be good at it. King Of The Hill had Dale not be good at basket weaving (what a great episode). I've also seen many musicians have passion for their instrument and just be awful at it. Hell, Steven Seagal has released MULTIPLE albums and he's one of the worst blues guitarists I've ever heard.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
I mean I run shooty elements for Black Templars
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/16 21:25:18
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
@EviscerationPlague: You've actually listened to Steven Seagall's albums? Please, tell me you listened to Kill on repeat for several hours just to "cleanse" your ears.
Gadzilla666 wrote: @EviscerationPlague: You've actually listened to Steven Seagall's albums? Please, tell me you listened to Kill on repeat for several hours just to "cleanse" your ears.
Pretty lucky guess Kill is my favorite album by them (I'm not big on Barnes because his personality alone ruins his albums for me), but Seagal is some pretty mediocre to bad stuff. I listened to two albums, Crystal Cave and Mojo Priest. This was the single best song he did off those two albums, and hear how bad it is:
Gadzilla666 wrote: @EviscerationPlague: You've actually listened to Steven Seagall's albums? Please, tell me you listened to Kill on repeat for several hours just to "cleanse" your ears.
Pretty lucky guess Kill is my favorite album by them (I'm not big on Barnes because his personality alone ruins his albums for me), but Seagal is some pretty mediocre to bad stuff. I listened to two albums, Crystal Cave and Mojo Priest. This was the single best song he did off those two albums, and hear how bad it is:
Yeah, that's pretty bad. And Kill is my favorite as well. And fully agreed on Barnes vs Fischer. George is hands down the best front man in Death Metal, IMHO (anyone whose seen them live can attest to that. And yes, my old has seen them with both).
Edit: We're getting a bit OT here. If you want to talk "Extreme Metal", feel free to PM me, Plague.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/16 22:38:08
Tyran wrote:I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
Dudeface wrote:
Hecaton wrote: What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
There's a right way and a wrong way to handle army specialization.
The wrong way is to give a faction only bad options for a particular specialty. Only giving Orks overcosted shooting units would be a tacit encouragement to min-max into melee and eschew shooting altogether. You see this all the time with subfactions that favor certain units; you don't sprinkle some melee into a shooting-buffing faction, you go all-in on shooting units.
The right way is to structure the army so that they cannot lean into the capability you're trying to make them weak at. I've got two examples in mind- Kroot, and Tyranids.
Tau have never been a melee army, deriving their melee capability from Kroot. But Kroot don't have to be a bad unit or lack synergy with the rest of the army in order to encourage Tau players to focus on shooting and avoid a melee-heavy army. They just need to not be hardcore melee specialists, and so Kroot are a unit with decent shooting and decent melee, but not spectacular at or specialized into either. An army that's heavy on Kroot is still a shooting-capable army, and can never go toe-to-toe with Orks or Blood Angels. Kroot can be worth their points and attractive as a melee supplement for Tau forces while still having the army lackluster at melee overall.
Meanwhile, from 3rd-5th Tyranids seriously lacked for ranged anti-tank. So you could build a gunline easily enough, but without good anti-tank you would struggle against armies with much in the way of armor. The good Tyranid anti-tank weapons were psykers with limited range and melee units, so there was natural incentive to take stuff other than just shooting.
If GW made Kroot dedicated melee specialists but then deliberately overcosted them, or gave Tyranids anti-tank shooting units but made all Tyranid shooting overcosted, the end result would be no Kroot and no Tyranid shooting on the table. That's bad design.
So for Orks, rather than have dedicated Ork shooting units be bad for the cost, if the goal were for the army to need melee (something I don't really agree with- Orks have always been about dakka) I'd look at instead promoting more hybrid units; things cost-ineffective if used just for shooting, but having melee capability that's worth using. I'd also try to insert some conspicuous gaps, like lack of long-range shooting, requiring a more in-your-face approach. These units could be good and well-pointed for what they are, just lacking the capabilities to facilitate a pure gunline.
And if GW wants Marines to be infantry-heavy, the right way to do that is not to make Space Marine tanks all crap for their points. It's to ensure that the army has roles that can only be filled by infantry, encouraging their use and making an all-tank SM army ineffective for reasons other than raw points efficiency.
(Or, of course, they could always use the FOC to limit army composition, but clearly that ship has sailed)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/17 01:51:30
SemperMortis wrote: Based on the new updates I honestly predict SM to start running away with tournaments when these changes are implemented. I just don't see how a faction can't dominate the meta when they are allowed to take almost every upgrade for free.
A Devastator squad equipped with 4 Lascannons just went from 155pts (Cherub) to 115pts and you can give the Sgt free upgrades as well
A Sternguard Vet squad equipped with Combi-Meltas and 2 Heavy meltas and Sgt with PF just went from 165pts to 100pts
A Aggressor Squad with Boltstorm/grenade launcher just went from 135pts to 90pts.
And those are just some of the ridiculous levels of power increase I'm talking about. With the insane amount of points reductions that Marines got, they can now take about 20% more units, and those new units will be fully kitted out with free upgrades.
Ironically, in a rare twist, with these ridiculous levels of points drops across the board for Marines; Several units which hadn't been playable before are now going to be OP and a few others will go from collecting dust to competitive. I just fear they went too far in the points cuts and drastically overvalued how much AoC was really worth.
guard get almost every upgrade for free and aren't dominating the meta...its not so much about the upgrades as the stats of units and the upgrades, which the marines are behind on.
Meanwhile, from 3rd-5th Tyranids seriously lacked for ranged anti-tank. So you could build a gunline easily enough, but without good anti-tank you would struggle against armies with much in the way of armor. The good Tyranid anti-tank weapons were psykers with limited range and melee units, so there was natural incentive to take stuff other than just shooting.
Not quite, 3-5th Tyranids had venom cannons and rupture cannons were introduced in 5th. And they were blatant examples of wargear that was designed to be bad.
Hive Guard also were introduced in 5th and they were like one of the only 5 good units in that book.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/02/17 03:06:48
jumping into the ork argument late and without full context, but I think Orks should kinda be middle of the road at everything on an individual level, with their numbers being what decides how good an individual army is at one or the other.
BS5+ with lots of shots per weapon, and lots models shooting would mean they're pretty good at shooting (assuming their guns have decent stats)
S5 T5 WS4+ and 1A per boy isn't too bad when you've got 9 of them and a nob with 2 attacks for example.
I do like the idea of them being slightly better at melee over all though.
Tyran wrote: I do dislike that argument because it very easily slides into "make Ork shooty units subpar", and because Orks have dedicated shooty units, that means a good portion of the codex is bad by design.
If they want to make melee the go-to option, then it should be incentivized at the army level, not individual models.
That's exactly what it means, they'd have to be good units that don't benefit from the army rules, which by default makes them subpar compared to the melee options.
What are Bad Moonz players supposed to do then?
Accept they need melee elements and that they're not intended to be the "competitive" build. So nothing changes I guess?
i find this idea absolutely stupid tbh.
i get balancing rules is difficult but if they intentionally make some sub faction rules stronger that's super dumb. fortunately i don't think that's the case since pretty much any combination of guard rules is pretty competitive right now, with only 1 or 2 that i think are weak in game but super fluffy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/17 03:13:39
Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
Dudeface wrote: Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Dudeface wrote: Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Yes, they got subfaction rules, there isn't a single book in print where there isn't a best and or worst subfaction. Often a subfaction completely makes or breaks an army/build as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/17 08:05:44
The issue is that subfaction abilities have grown too powerful.
So to go with Orks again, its not just the issue of "sub-par shooting". The problem is you've got Goffs boosting Boyz equivalent by over 50% into say Marines. By contrast Bad Moons boost shooting damage output by 3% - and yes, potentially you get to shoot with your extra range, but that's probably not an issue due to how close-in 40k is.
Unsurprisingly one of these things you build an army around - and another is a token bonus that very moderately impacts your game.
But its not clear it has to be this skewed.
I'm not really sure GW even want armies to "look" a certain way. Plastic sold is plastic sold. I just think that basically up to this edition they had a collector first/player second mindset. So the idea would be that you'd bring a bit of everything, some good, some bad, aka White Dwarf armies. But clearly this meant (probably from the get go - but with ever increasing frequency from about 5th onwards) that you just took 3 of the best thing, then 3 of the next best thing. Its only really been in 9th that they've tried to make most things good in their own terms - and that's why there's fewer outright terrible options than in past editions. But synergy still makes some things better - sometimes a lot better - than others.
Different plastic sold is more plastic sold. I think they just haven't trickled out yet. They've done it with BA vs DA vs UM, vs SW but they haven't done it with Orks yet.
GW has a history of rolling out ideas in SM first, then from there to everyone else - at times they've even done it with UM first, then SM, then everyone else. Doctrines started in UM, then went to all marines, then other armies. Many of the Doctrines/etc are even lifted out of a SM chapter and dropped into another army whether it fits or not - UM and Black Legion are usually mirrors of each other for example. Sautekh and Ravenwing are very similar. Space Wolves Hunter Unleashed, Goff No Muckin' About. I'd guess you could find/make a lot of the Super Doctrine type things out of the DIY Chapter stuff in the SM Codex.
Tyran wrote:Not quite, 3-5th Tyranids had venom cannons and rupture cannons were introduced in 5th.
And they were blatant examples of wargear that was designed to be bad.
Hive Guard also were introduced in 5th and they were like one of the only 5 good units in that book.
I remember venom cannons putting in work against infantry, but against vehicles that 'only glances' rule was pretty rough.
And yeah, Rupture Cannons having AP4 is the thing I point to when my buddies ask 'why don't you play your Tyranids in our 5th Ed campaign?'.
EviscerationPlague wrote:They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Tyel wrote:The issue is that subfaction abilities have grown too powerful.
IMO the fundamental problem isn't the power level, it's the fact that they're free. Even if subfaction abilities are kept relatively weak, they're a tacit incentive to min-max into units that benefit from the ability and allow the army to punch above its weight. The actual value of a subfaction trait varies between zero (you took the subfaction because it's your fluff but none of your models actually benefit from it) to significant (every model in the army has been chosen to maximize the subfaction trait) or somewhere in between, and that's impossible to predict or appropriately cost.
You end up with these flanderized armies where Blood Angels have melee and nothing else, Hydra is all little critters and not a Carnifex in sight, Catachans are tank and artillery carparks (huh?), and so on. I don't know if the vision the designers had in mind was that a well-rounded army would be a little better at their fluff specialty, but the practical result is that you don't take a well-rounded army, you specialize.
I'd much rather represent subfaction traits as things like:
-Optional upgrades- you're the tank subfaction, so you can pay a points cost per tank to upgrade it; you don't get indirectly punished for taking infantry and not just spamming tanks.
-Fluff-appropriate options rather than straight buffs- you play Catachans, so you can take heavy flamers on your infantry as a heavy weapons choice.
-Unique units- you're Ultramarines, you get Tyrannic War Veterans.
No freebies, just options appropriate to the subfaction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/17 14:56:57
catbarf wrote: I'd much rather represent subfaction traits as things like:
-Optional upgrades- you're the tank subfaction, so you can pay a points cost per tank to upgrade it; you don't get indirectly punished for taking infantry and not just spamming tanks.
-Fluff-appropriate options rather than straight buffs- you play Catachans, so you can take heavy flamers on your infantry as a heavy weapons choice.
-Unique units- you're Ultramarines, you get Tyrannic War Veterans.
No freebies, just options appropriate to the subfaction.
I agree with all of the above and want to highlight one downside to that method.
Let's assume we are being oldschool and want to represent Blood Angels by giving them the ability to have Furious Charge.
- If they could pay per unit, but don't have to take it, only melee units will get it. You even might end up with two identical melee units, where one got FC and the other didn't. It feels wrong from a POV if you think FC is because of their genetics.
- If they have to pay for it for every model, it encourages melee only / melee focused lists again, as shooty elements become less efficient than those from other chapters.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
It can work. And definitely helps "balance" the abilities. Should all Night Lords have Night Vision? Probably. But I'm perfectly happy to pay for Preysight. Because it's that strong. Just getting it for free would be too much, IMO.
Dudeface wrote: Re the orks, as a reminder that's not my opinion I was just pasing on the comment from the video and I think catbarf hits the nail on the head. I'd also onot be shocked to see subfactions going away tbh as they're a fantastic flavour option but nightmare balance wise.
They really aren't a nightmare balance wise. It's the Strats and Warlord Traits that get locked to specific armies, or the fact that certain armies, like Dark Angels, get rules on top of rules on top of rules because reasons.
Yes, they got subfaction rules, there isn't a single book in print where there isn't a best and or worst subfaction. Often a subfaction completely makes or breaks an army/build as well.
Representation for various Marines has been good though. Each problem comes from a super specific rule. You think Dark Angels are bringing Terminators because they always stand still for a +1 to hit? You think Iron Hands just ignore the Devasator doctrine?
It's always the rules inside rules and you know that.
I guess the issue is that I don't really mind flanderisation.
I mean sure - if you are a BA player because you really love red tanks and devestators, then I guess that sucks. But I'd be tempted to say "2nd Ed Marine subfactions" are their own issue.
If say you are an Eldar player, you have a wider roster of units. Its very unlikely however that any random selection is going to match every other random selection in terms of power. It therefore feels the "list building centrifuge" is going to produce a single list (or 90% of its set and you get one flavour choice).
Notionally at least subfactions was a way to break this. You could have rules that favoured Psykers+Guardians, Aspect warriors, wraith units, etc. Assuming your collection was a bit more than 2k points, you could then pick and choose as whim struck. You get more list archetypes - and GW could design with such in mind (sorry if this is canned strategy etc, but its a thing in other games.)
It hasn't worked that way - and this system has then been expanded to factions who only have about 4 units so its purely a function of power - but as an idea I don't think its a bad one. (Yes I said the same of formations why are you looking at me like that....)
Maybe you can do this but just assign points values for all the options so you don't tread on vanilla choices. But GW's points have been so hit and miss across the decades its hard to believe that wouldn't just work out the same.
catbarf wrote: I'd much rather represent subfaction traits as things like:
-Optional upgrades- you're the tank subfaction, so you can pay a points cost per tank to upgrade it; you don't get indirectly punished for taking infantry and not just spamming tanks.
-Fluff-appropriate options rather than straight buffs- you play Catachans, so you can take heavy flamers on your infantry as a heavy weapons choice.
-Unique units- you're Ultramarines, you get Tyrannic War Veterans.
No freebies, just options appropriate to the subfaction.
I agree with all of the above and want to highlight one downside to that method.
Let's assume we are being oldschool and want to represent Blood Angels by giving them the ability to have Furious Charge.
- If they could pay per unit, but don't have to take it, only melee units will get it. You even might end up with two identical melee units, where one got FC and the other didn't. It feels wrong from a POV if you think FC is because of their genetics.
- If they have to pay for it for every model, it encourages melee only / melee focused lists again, as shooty elements become less efficient than those from other chapters.
That's true, but I'd be fine with the 'only some have it' approach. A fluff-oriented player is probably going to take the upgrade on all of their melee units. Even if they don't, I have no problem fluffing that the greener units don't yet have the experience to take maximal advantage of their genetic lineage, or something along those lines. It's less grating to my suspension of disbelief than the flanderized depictions of factions that really ought to be more well-rounded than typically depicted on the tabletop.
You could also specify that all instances of a datasheet must have the upgrade, or list out which units get the upgrade and which don't. The thing to avoid is having to buy Furious Charge for your Devastators, because wasting points on unnecessary upgrades brings you back to just not taking Devastators to begin with.
Tyel wrote: Notionally at least subfactions was a way to break this. You could have rules that favoured Psykers+Guardians, Aspect warriors, wraith units, etc. Assuming your collection was a bit more than 2k points, you could then pick and choose as whim struck. You get more list archetypes - and GW could design with such in mind (sorry if this is canned strategy etc, but its a thing in other games.)
It also tends to railroad you into those archetypes. If there's a unit that you like but no subfaction bonus that really benefits it, then building an army around that unit is doomed to mediocrity. And the further you stray from min-max, the worse your army gets. If you've got a subfaction bonus that gives you a free upgrade on all wraith units, the 'right' way to build a list is to cram as many wraith units into it as possible. Iyanden might use more wraith constructs than other craftworlds, but an army that is almost all wraith constructs is where it becomes one-note.
If you instead paid a certain number of points for a given wraith unit to upgrade it to 'Ancestors of the Iyanden' or something, you'd have a bit more freedom in army construction while still having the opportunity to specialize in wraith constructs.
And of course, representing subfactions with minor bonuses greatly limits what you can do. The 3.5Ed Guard codex let you take an airborne army by paying for Deep Strike on every unit, or represent better-equipped armies by paying for carapace armor. Deep Strike or a flat +1 to your save are both too powerful to give out for free, but with an appropriate points cost can be reasonably balanced.
has seen them with both). 
