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.

ccs wrote:

In what world is running 2+ GK Thunderhawks problematic? Let alone even a thing.

Looks like everything over a certain threshhold got it by default. Mostly this seems to be done to prevent certain threshholds like too many Knights or Stompas, but they all seem to have a pretty consistent 10ish% tax on the second.

 Ashiraya wrote:
As was brought up in the big debates about free wargear earlier, effectiveness isn't linear. Due to the context of the game, manoeuvring, force concentration and so on, a second gun is sometimes more or less than twice as potent overall as a single gun is.

You can't really properly account for this on the lowest level when things are very cheap, but I genuinely do think it makes some sense to at the least do it for 250+ point power bruisers whose influence has a drastic effect on game play.

Yeah. I get the idea on paper, but then it seems like there's a better way to handle that sort of thing. The russ discussion from earlier kind of touched on this. If you have 3 different russ variants with similar preferred targets, you'd think that would warrant a spam tax as much as 3 of the same variant would. They all take similar resources to be killed, so variant A can functionally distract shots away from variants B and C to give them an extra turn of shooting just like 3 copies of variant A could distract shots away from eachother.

And even if the idea makes sense on paper, it still seems like a lot of units got hit with the spam tax when they didn't really need it. And then there's weirdness like ynnari reavers vs drukhari reavers.

 catbarf wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
like I said, 40% of the drukhari codex has a spam tax now

Hello, Drukhari player. You want to take three units of shardcarbine Scourges? That's fine, you'll just pay an extra tax for spamming one unit. What's that, Astra Militarum player? You want to take sixteen fething Leman Russes? Well you've got two each of eight different variants so that isn't spam at all!

I was pretty positive on the spam tax concept but I don't understand the implementation. Rather than limiting it to known problem units it seems to have been applied in a more scattershot manner, disproportionately hurting factions with fewer datasheets.

I'd really like to know what sort of heuristic they were operating on in making these decisions.

Given that every GW designer traded 80 IQ points for the ability to vomit Space Marine lieutenants, I'm guessing they looked at which dataslates saw the most play, without considering:

- The number of variant dataslates of that unit.

- The number of dataslates in the army as a whole.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
As was brought up in the big debates about free wargear earlier, effectiveness isn't linear. Due to the context of the game, manoeuvring, force concentration and so on, a second gun is sometimes more or less than twice as potent overall as a single gun is.

You can't really properly account for this on the lowest level when things are very cheap, but I genuinely do think it makes some sense to at the least do it for 250+ point power bruisers whose influence has a drastic effect on game play.

Yeah. I get the idea on paper, but then it seems like there's a better way to handle that sort of thing. The russ discussion from earlier kind of touched on this. If you have 3 different russ variants with similar preferred targets, you'd think that would warrant a spam tax as much as 3 of the same variant would. They all take similar resources to be killed, so variant A can functionally distract shots away from variants B and C to give them an extra turn of shooting just like 3 copies of variant A could distract shots away from eachother.

And even if the idea makes sense on paper, it still seems like a lot of units got hit with the spam tax when they didn't really need it. And then there's weirdness like ynnari reavers vs drukhari reavers.

I think we're largely agreeing but going in circles. Seems like we've both arrived at the "there is logic in this concept, but as usual, GW is haphazard in its implementation".

Essentially what you end up doing is redesigning Force Org Charts, which can have some value but struggles if you try to rigidly fit every unit into a set of preset classes. I think a better modern incarnation would be something like a Category keyword where like Gladiator would be a Category you can only take 3 of or something.

I'm kind of with Jidmah on this one though under the idea that its more of a theoretical problem than something actually worth solving. A lot of balance concerns are more about the principle of the thing than a practical need. The perception of equivalence over the reality of armies being successful on the table.

It's kind of fun to see how much perception messes with things. Like I'd wager there's a few instances of things like a unit that used to be 100 and is now 90/90/110 where people no longer perceive the third unit as worthwhile.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think a better modern incarnation would be something like a Category keyword where like Gladiator would be a Category you can only take 3 of or something.

Great suggestion! We could call that Category "Heavy Support"?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think a better modern incarnation would be something like a Category keyword where like Gladiator would be a Category you can only take 3 of or something.

Great suggestion! We could call that Category "Heavy Support"?

I think Force Org is a good idea, but GW's categories were bunk and fairly arbitrary

I don't know if its so much core rule reaction, but the opposite of that Spam Tax also has an interesting thing. I always try and make a few "theme" lists in each new edition - The Spear of Macragge all tank list, Demi Company and Full Company, a couple others.

The Full Company list is as "good" as I've seen in a while. Captain, Chaplain, Judiciar, Lieutenant, 6 Bladeguard, 30 Intercessors, 30 Tacticals, 10 Assault Intercessors, 10 Jump Intercessors, 20 Devastators all fits in less than 2,000. Normally you have to skimp a lot more than that and can't fit an Elite like Bladeguard. I don't know that its a good list, but it does have a lot of quantity compared to past editions.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm kind of with Jidmah on this one though under the idea that its more of a theoretical problem than something actually worth solving. A lot of balance concerns are more about the principle of the thing than a practical need. The perception of equivalence over the reality of armies being successful on the table.

I think its been observed that the majority of placing (and at times OP) lists in 10th
A) often don't take 3 of the same datasheet
B) would have fit into the traditional FOC

GW could come out and say "we know everyone hates playing against knights. We are going to tax any unit that starts making you feel like you are playing against Knights to non-competitive status, much as we tried to do with aircraft." This would mainly be a concern about game/army feel rather than balance.

Agree. Tripples of units only appeared in two cases.
Either it was due to something extremely powerful (DG demon engines, defilers, ork tankbustas), or when a codex simply has no other options for a specific role.

What has changed that GW now has a tool to nuke those massive imbalances without destroying perfectly fine lists which used some unit as part of their strategy, rather than have the whole army revolve around it.

The best example here was the PBC - nerfed into oblivion by a massiv point raise, there was zero reason to ever field it, you could have two other demon engines with more firepower for the same price. With the current implementation the first PBC is back to its old cost, so any DG player who wants to run one PBC can do so without kneecapping themselves, but anyone who wants to have reliable indirect fire support needs to pay the full price for it.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think Force Org is a good idea, but GW's categories were bunk and fairly arbitrary

It would be really interesting if they took after 30k's example and expanded the categories.

Not necessarily took after the whole system 30k has. But it's useful to have Heavy Transport separate from Armour since they don't necessarily fill much the same role at all.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think a better modern incarnation would be something like a Category keyword where like Gladiator would be a Category you can only take 3 of or something.

Great suggestion! We could call that Category "Heavy Support"?

See, that's my exact point (and why I mentioned that you end up reinventing FOC). I WOULDN'T call it that because Heavy Support becomes part of a set of overly generic buckets that armies force themselves to fit into and limit themselves by. Locking Gladiators and Repulsors and Land Raiders and Dreadnoughts and everything to the same 3 is really limiting without being very helpful. Even then you get into weird nuance over whether the Ballistus has more in common with a Gladiator than the Brutalis.

Ultimately, the main issue with Rule of 3 is that its not entirely consistent, but it clearly works. The places where you end up working around it end up doing so with models that aren't nearly as similar in function as they are in appearance. Gladiators all look the same but the Lancer and Reaper don't really overlap the same way 4 of the actual same datasheet would. It feels like these players are getting around it in theory but that's not the experience on the table.

The cost for multiples of a datasheet are obviously just randomly applied without any real thought, how do I know?

Pyrovores.

I might be the only player in the world effected by this but who the hell looks at pyrovores and thinks, man these guys are too powerful to be taken in three squads of three! I might be one of the only people who runs Assimilation Swarms but having to pay more points for a third squad of pyrovores is such a bizarre choice. Is a unit with three heavy flamers really changing up the meta? Was Assimilation Swarm sweeping tournaments that I wasn't aware of? I would argue that psychopages are better harvester units and hey don't pay for a third dataslate. Three out of the fiver harvester datatslates have an extra cost for their third of a unit so I am lead to believe that someone at GW thinks that the Assimilation Swarm could be or is problematic.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
The cost for multiples of a datasheet are obviously just randomly applied without any real thought, how do I know?

Pyrovores.

I might be the only player in the world effected by this but who the hell looks at pyrovores and thinks, man these guys are too powerful to be taken in three squads of three! I might be one of the only people who runs Assimilation Swarms but having to pay more points for a third squad of pyrovores is such a bizarre choice. Is a unit with three heavy flamers really changing up the meta? Was Assimilation Swarm sweeping tournaments that I wasn't aware of? I would argue that psychopages are better harvester units and hey don't pay for a third dataslate. Three out of the fiver harvester datatslates have an extra cost for their third of a unit so I am lead to believe that someone at GW thinks that the Assimilation Swarm could be or is problematic.

It was the interns, who was in charge of typing up the pts docs, response to being beaten badly by another interns assimilation swarm earlier in the week.
"This'll show him! Take that Joe!"
Everyone else is just collateral damage for the moment.

Eventually Sales will get irritated that Pyrovore sales have dipped & voila, a new balance pass!

“Hey, we need to get some new numbers out there as a baseline to work from, but the old data might not be relevant due to all the rules changes, so just go on vibes. We can fix it in the first balance passes”
“Sure thing boss!”

 Nevelon wrote:
“Hey, we need to get some new numbers out there as a baseline to work from, but the old data might not be relevant due to all the rules changes, so just go on vibes. We can fix it in the first balance passes”
“Sure thing boss!”

It sure seems like that a lot of times, even outside of our hobby
the video game industry does the same thing with balancing too

 Mrangryork wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
“Hey, we need to get some new numbers out there as a baseline to work from, but the old data might not be relevant due to all the rules changes, so just go on vibes. We can fix it in the first balance passes”
“Sure thing boss!”

It sure seems like that a lot of times, even outside of our hobby
the video game industry does the same thing with balancing too

Yeah, we are pretty well conditioned to buggy launches and post release patches. Just get it out the door for the launch date, fix it later. Which is honestly fine, especially for table top minis games.

If the points are a little screwy it’s not going to BSoD and crash to desktop. Still playable. And once they get the data from a few thousands of gamers hitting the table, they can tweak as needed. They have new levers to pull ro adjust things. Might not be used well at launch, but are there for use.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Mrangryork wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
“Hey, we need to get some new numbers out there as a baseline to work from, but the old data might not be relevant due to all the rules changes, so just go on vibes. We can fix it in the first balance passes”
“Sure thing boss!”

It sure seems like that a lot of times, even outside of our hobby
the video game industry does the same thing with balancing too

Yeah, we are pretty well conditioned to buggy launches and post release patches. Just get it out the door for the launch date, fix it later. Which is honestly fine, especially for table top minis games.

If the points are a little screwy it’s not going to BSoD and crash to desktop. Still playable. And once they get the data from a few thousands of gamers hitting the table, they can tweak as needed. They have new levers to pull ro adjust things. Might not be used well at launch, but are there for use.

Oh, since you're here I have a request from you. Any chance you could help this user out? They're getting into the hobby for the first time since 6 years ago and want some advice on what to get/read. I'm assuming you're a Spacemarine in player based off of your pfp, and so are they. There's only so much an ork to player can do to help, especially a newbie like me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/819174.page

( sorry if this is bothering to you, just trying to get this guy some help from people who are smarter than me. )

 Mrangryork wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Mrangryork wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
“Hey, we need to get some new numbers out there as a baseline to work from, but the old data might not be relevant due to all the rules changes, so just go on vibes. We can fix it in the first balance passes”
“Sure thing boss!”

It sure seems like that a lot of times, even outside of our hobby
the video game industry does the same thing with balancing too

Yeah, we are pretty well conditioned to buggy launches and post release patches. Just get it out the door for the launch date, fix it later. Which is honestly fine, especially for table top minis games.

If the points are a little screwy it’s not going to BSoD and crash to desktop. Still playable. And once they get the data from a few thousands of gamers hitting the table, they can tweak as needed. They have new levers to pull ro adjust things. Might not be used well at launch, but are there for use.

Oh, since you're here I have a request from you. Any chance you could help this user out? They're getting into the hobby for the first time since 6 years ago and want some advice on what to get/read. I'm assuming you're a Spacemarine in player based off of your pfp, and so are they. There's only so much an ork to player can do to help, especially a newbie like me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/819174.page

I saw that and was planning on a longer post after work, but it needed more thought then I could put in between working claims.

I saw that and was planning on a longer post after work, but it needed more thought then I could put in between working claims.

no worrys. But getting back on the subject of 11th edition, what do you people think of the 9-in circle? I'm sad that I won't be able to do the Conga line of death with my orc boys ( which is probably a valid change made ) but that means that space Marine players and other heavier units that only have two or three miniatures can spread out super wide, which is a very interesting choice. I can't really think of a bunch of scenarios where this would be useful except for maybe preventing some miniatures from being damaged by AOE stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
( man I'm bad at wording all of this, hoping this isn't coming across as rude or anything )

Move blocking is one of the least immersive and silliest strats in the game, so I approve reining it in.

The moment I realised I am better off standing my Hormagaunts 1" away from the opponent and not charging in order to deny their movement phase completely (since charging will often just see them wiped, giving the enemy free value and consolidation movement) something in me just broke. I can't describe how visceral the sense of wrongness from Hormagaunts AFKing in front of the enemy is. That's just not 40k, or it shouldn't be 40k.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Move blocking is one of the least immersive and silliest strats in the game, so I approve reining it in.

The moment I realised I am better off standing my Hormagaunts 1" away from the opponent and not charging in order to deny their movement phase completely (since charging will often just see them wiped, giving the enemy free value and consolidation movement) something in me just broke. I can't describe how visceral the sense of wrongness from Hormagaunts AFKing in front of the enemy is. That's just not 40k, or it shouldn't be 40k.

Creating an area denial is a legit tactic though.

Not even beardy either, and I suspect with some missions in 11th we're going to WANT to do things like this.

I really agree with that
It's a symptom of melee giving your opponent a free melee attack too (unless you wipe them first).
If you consider the action economy of 40, where a unit normally only gets to act like 4 times, that's *really* bad.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Move blocking is one of the least immersive and silliest strats in the game, so I approve reining it in.

The moment I realised I am better off standing my Hormagaunts 1" away from the opponent and not charging in order to deny their movement phase completely (since charging will often just see them wiped, giving the enemy free value and consolidation movement) something in me just broke. I can't describe how visceral the sense of wrongness from Hormagaunts AFKing in front of the enemy is. That's just not 40k, or it shouldn't be 40k.

i'm just more sad I can't have an entire row of boyz as a wall up into the opponents and crash into them during the charge phase. ( Not really into movement blocking myself, i just think it's cool to have a row of guys running across the map )

 whembly wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Move blocking is one of the least immersive and silliest strats in the game, so I approve reining it in.

The moment I realised I am better off standing my Hormagaunts 1" away from the opponent and not charging in order to deny their movement phase completely (since charging will often just see them wiped, giving the enemy free value and consolidation movement) something in me just broke. I can't describe how visceral the sense of wrongness from Hormagaunts AFKing in front of the enemy is. That's just not 40k, or it shouldn't be 40k.

Creating an area denial is a legit tactic though.

Not even beardy either, and I suspect with some missions in 11th we're going to WANT to do things like this.

It's an effective tactic in game but can you imagine it in real life?
Especially when you consider that a unit can vary from seriously love blocking (if they end their turn close) or actually a substantial speed boost (if they end it at the edge of charge range). That really doesn't make any realistic sense

 Mrangryork wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Move blocking is one of the least immersive and silliest strats in the game, so I approve reining it in.

The moment I realised I am better off standing my Hormagaunts 1" away from the opponent and not charging in order to deny their movement phase completely (since charging will often just see them wiped, giving the enemy free value and consolidation movement) something in me just broke. I can't describe how visceral the sense of wrongness from Hormagaunts AFKing in front of the enemy is. That's just not 40k, or it shouldn't be 40k.

i'm just more sad I can't have an entire row of boyz as a wall up into the opponents and crash into them during the charge phase. ( Not really into movement blocking myself, i just think it's cool to have a row of guys running across the map )

This can still be done by having multiple units!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mrangryork wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Move blocking is one of the least immersive and silliest strats in the game, so I approve reining it in.

The moment I realised I am better off standing my Hormagaunts 1" away from the opponent and not charging in order to deny their movement phase completely (since charging will often just see them wiped, giving the enemy free value and consolidation movement) something in me just broke. I can't describe how visceral the sense of wrongness from Hormagaunts AFKing in front of the enemy is. That's just not 40k, or it shouldn't be 40k.

i'm just more sad I can't have an entire row of boyz as a wall up into the opponents and crash into them during the charge phase. ( Not really into movement blocking myself, i just think it's cool to have a row of guys running across the map )

This can still be done by having multiple units!

Thinking back now, this should be obvious to me lol. Just means I have to have more units of boyz. At least they reduced their point cost

 whembly wrote:

Creating an area denial is a legit tactic though.

Not even beardy either, and I suspect with some missions in 11th we're going to WANT to do things like this.

It's patently ridiculous. When was the last time you read a Tyranid novel where the Hormagaunts swarm into the Imperial advance only to promptly take a nap half a metre away from the Imperial line because there's an invisible no-walky force field around them? And then stay there the whole battle if the opponent isn't willing to commit the firepower to overkilling them?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Creating an area denial is a legit tactic though.

Not even beardy either, and I suspect with some missions in 11th we're going to WANT to do things like this.

It's patently ridiculous. When was the last time you read a Tyranid novel where the Hormagaunts swarm into the Imperial advance only to promptly take a nap half a metre away from the Imperial line because there's an invisible no-walky force field around them? And then stay there the whole battle if the opponent isn't willing to commit the firepower to overkilling them?

Wow, that is a really dumb rule. In no story or real life history ever, has anything like that happened. It just doesn't make any sense at all.