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.

So I want to start by saying I feel that GW has done a pretty damn good job of balancing 8th out of the gate overall, and I am actually really surprised at both the clear tournament related thought that went into this edition to begin with as well as to the way in which they have continued to release tweaks in faqs and books since its drop to keep things balanced. However, there is still a clear and apparent balance issue going on despite all of this. Whether you are talking alpha strike lists, the flyer spam, the conscript spam etc etc. I've seen a lot of topics complaining about these things individually, but I feel like there is an elephant in the room I haven't heard nearly as many complaints about, but I feel is the cause of almost all the issues: Detachments. Now, when it comes to narrative play and open play they are fun and cool and allow for thematic lists, but in an environment that encourages efficiency they are clearly a nightmare.

Taking multiples of the same type of unit almost always increases the static power of that unit for a multitude of reason. Even many many spammed bad units in wargaming can often turn that bad unit good. Yet GW has created a detachment system that essentially allows for unlimited spamming without consequences that matter. Now you can highlight Command Points as a way they have tried to counter this, but even the worst of the spam lists are battle forged and include 1-2 +1 CP detachments, meaning they still have 4-5 command points, more then enough to see these lists through 3 turns with the command point spamming restrictions, and in all likelihood with how most of these spanned lists work, one way or another they game is going to be over for practical purposes at that point. The new first turn rule might solve alpha strike issues, but not spamming. And the new troop objective rule at first glance helps, but when a balanced list will almost always be wiped before the end of the game in a tournament the point is kinda moot.

Needless to say all of this leads to a pretty dull competitive scene. The number of matched play detachments should be limited, or at the very least every army MUST include a batalion which can be upgraded to a brigade, or in 1k or less pt games downgraded to a patrol if desired. Additionally units in the same detachment probably should be required to have 2 keywords in common rather then 1 to be battleforged or something like that. I'm not great with rewriting rules idk what makes the most sense, but the route of the problem seems obvious to me and I feel like it is only truly fixable via a redesign of the detachment system. My only hope is that GW's new willingness to tweek the game system like they have been causes them to see the light on this as well. At the very least it seems like a pretty easy TO fix.

Any other idea's on this detachment thing? There is always going to be a couple common buildouts at tourneys and there will always be a "new hotness" build, I just don't want to see any more tournaments where every SM army is Guiliman and 5 of x vehicle.

I don't think that really fixes the issues that plague 8th atm.

I really don't think this would fix anything. There are plenty of other units that do the same thing in a different slot that you'd have x3 of this vehicle and x3 of another one. Plus you can make a good lost with gman and 2x of this and 2x of that, etc. No matter what you do, people will make good lists that seem boring to you. That's just the nature of the game.

jcd386 wrote:
I really don't think this would fix anything. There are plenty of other units that do the same thing in a different slot that you'd have x3 of this vehicle and x3 of another one. Plus you can make a good lost with gman and 2x of this and 2x of that, etc. No matter what you do, people will make good lists that seem boring to you. That's just the nature of the game.

I make note that there is always going to be a better list. But if you can't see the difference between a marine list taking guiliman, 2 stormravens, 2 preds, 3 min tac squads, and 2 dreds or whatever and guiliman and 5 stormravens, we are having 2 completely different conversations. There is a HUGE difference between a really good Space marine list and a list that is literally just 5 flyers and a named character... I think spamming in general is a huge issue. By default tourney play is going to involve taking optimal units. I don't mind that, but most of the most agregious complaints I have seen, and as I have mathhammered list builds is that there is 0 reason for variety in competitive warhammer. There will always be a couple of OP units, I think everyone who has played a GW game before can handle that. I just want to see a little variety.

Well in your example all you have to do is kill gman and you win because GW already fixed the SR issue.

Some armies haev a lot less choice than others and everyone has less choice than Space Marines.

jcd386 wrote:
Well in your example all you have to do is kill gman and you win because GW already fixed the SR issue.

Its an example. Tay commander spam is another. Dar Reaper spam etc etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Some armies haev a lot less choice than others and everyone has less choice than Space Marines.

Yes they do but you wouldn't know it from the good tourney lists. Take any good elite or heavy support unit that isn't a glorified command squad model multiply it 6-9 times and prosper. I'm only slightly exaggerating.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Some armies haev a lot less choice than others and everyone has less choice than Space Marines.

Yes, but marine choices are largely false choices.

tripchimeras wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Well in your example all you have to do is kill gman and you win because GW already fixed the SR issue.

Its an example. Tay commander spam is another. Dar Reaper spam etc etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Some armies haev a lot less choice than others and everyone has less choice than Space Marines.

Yes they do but you wouldn't know it from the good tourney lists. Take any good elite or heavy support unit that isn't a glorified command squad model multiply it 6-9 times and prosper. I'm only slightly exaggerating.

To me that just means those specific units might need nerfs, or other units might need buffs. Also i don't think there is anything wrong with taking 6 of the same unit if you want to. An army with 10 dreads, a bunch of tau suits, or 15 killa cans can be fun to play and cool to look at across the table. It's only when that build becomes the only good build, or clearly the best build that it becomes an issue for me. And these kinds of balance issues need to come from GW, imo. They have shown their willingness to listen to the community, and as long add they continue to do so i don't see too much of a issue. They've nerfed razorwings, brimstones, storm ravens, and maybe other stuff already. So just continue to be vocal about specific units and i have hope things will continue to improve.

tripchimeras wrote:
So I want to start by saying I feel that GW has done a pretty damn good job of balancing 8th out of the gate overall, and I am actually really surprised at both the clear tournament related thought that went into this edition to begin with as well as to the way in which they have continued to release tweaks in faqs and books since its drop to keep things balanced. However, there is still a clear and apparent balance issue going on despite all of this. Whether you are talking alpha strike lists, the flyer spam, the conscript spam etc etc. I've seen a lot of topics complaining about these things individually, but I feel like there is an elephant in the room I haven't heard nearly as many complaints about, but I feel is the cause of almost all the issues: Detachments. Now, when it comes to narrative play and open play they are fun and cool and allow for thematic lists, but in an environment that encourages efficiency they are clearly a nightmare.

Taking multiples of the same type of unit almost always increases the static power of that unit for a multitude of reason. Even many many spammed bad units in wargaming can often turn that bad unit good. Yet GW has created a detachment system that essentially allows for unlimited spamming without consequences that matter. Now you can highlight Command Points as a way they have tried to counter this, but even the worst of the spam lists are battle forged and include 1-2 +1 CP detachments, meaning they still have 4-5 command points, more then enough to see these lists through 3 turns with the command point spamming restrictions, and in all likelihood with how most of these spanned lists work, one way or another they game is going to be over for practical purposes at that point. The new first turn rule might solve alpha strike issues, but not spamming. And the new troop objective rule at first glance helps, but when a balanced list will almost always be wiped before the end of the game in a tournament the point is kinda moot.

Needless to say all of this leads to a pretty dull competitive scene. The number of matched play detachments should be limited, or at the very least every army MUST include a batalion which can be upgraded to a brigade, or in 1k or less pt games downgraded to a patrol if desired. Additionally units in the same detachment probably should be required to have 2 keywords in common rather then 1 to be battleforged or something like that. I'm not great with rewriting rules idk what makes the most sense, but the route of the problem seems obvious to me and I feel like it is only truly fixable via a redesign of the detachment system. My only hope is that GW's new willingness to tweek the game system like they have been causes them to see the light on this as well. At the very least it seems like a pretty easy TO fix.

Any other idea's on this detachment thing? There is always going to be a couple common buildouts at tourneys and there will always be a "new hotness" build, I just don't want to see any more tournaments where every SM army is Guiliman and 5 of x vehicle.

Unlike other people, I do actually agree this would have worked, and the reason being is that in the past it did work. From 3rd to early 4th edition, everyone was basically locked by the standard FoC of 1 HQ, 2 Troops compulsory and 3 of each of HS, FA and Elites, as well as 4 additional Troop Choices. On top of this, GW imposed a further "1+" or "0-1" (or 0-2, 0-3, etc... Basically it meant there was a max of these units you could take even if you had more slots for them), as well as requiring Special Characters to have your opponent's Permissions and having minimum (and in one case, maximum) points limit where they could be fielded. All of this was done so units were not only balanced by points, but also by role and numbers. For Example, Troops often got things that other people got for much less, but you had to buy a ton of generic guys before unlocking the special choices. The most obvious of these was the Tactical Squad VS the Devastator Squad. In essence, Troops balanced out the rest of your army by being point sinks and meatshields, allowing everyone else to function as glass cannon specialists in other roles. Units that could heavily sway the playstyle of a certain army (such as the now defunct Pariahs) were given the 0-1 limitation, meaning one squad of them was all you got to field in your army even if you had 3 elite choices free. On the other side, to make sure you fielded the necessary troops and didn't unintentionally gimp yourself into a corner, some troops or HQs were given the 1+ requirement (the only one off the top of my head I can remember were Fire Warriors), meaning you had to have them in your army; no excuses. It's telling that the two most infamous lists during this era was the one that had a hilariously awesome troop choice (Tau Fish of Fury, which was technically their Dedicated Transport for their troops) or the one that broke almost all of these limitations (Iron Warriors and their 4 HS choices and the removal of the 0-1 restriction on Obliterators, as well as the Forge World Armoured Company list, back when Leman Russes were actually terrifying).

Back then, whenever they did change up the FoC, there was usually a designer's note saying that you should be sensible when designing lists with them, as they weren't thoroughly tested and are no way considered as balanced as the ones that followed the normal FoC. Note that this went both ways; I remember Biel Tan Aspect Warriors and the Ulthwe Seer council were powerful, but something like Deathwing was sometimes found to be wanting, as they only had terminators, land raiders and dreadnoughts (and if they happened to go up against World Eaters...oh boy.).

But the game wasn't any more balanced then than it is now. You still took as many of x overpowered unit as you were allowed to, and people complained about it back then too.

Barring the two I mentioned (and possibly Saim Hann, who had it's own FoC), you usually will only ever see, at most, 3 of a unit, as oppose to an entire army made up of them like today. And from the matches I had back then, people usually only had 2.

The amount of detachments in matched play is already limited. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

tripchimeras wrote:
So I want to start by saying I feel that GW has done a pretty damn good job of balancing 8th out of the gate overall, and I am actually really surprised at both the clear tournament related thought that went into this edition to begin with as well as to the way in which they have continued to release tweaks in faqs and books since its drop to keep things balanced. However, there is still a clear and apparent balance issue going on despite all of this. Whether you are talking alpha strike lists, the flyer spam, the conscript spam etc etc. I've seen a lot of topics complaining about these things individually, but I feel like there is an elephant in the room I haven't heard nearly as many complaints about, but I feel is the cause of almost all the issues: Detachments. Now, when it comes to narrative play and open play they are fun and cool and allow for thematic lists, but in an environment that encourages efficiency they are clearly a nightmare.

Taking multiples of the same type of unit almost always increases the static power of that unit for a multitude of reason. Even many many spammed bad units in wargaming can often turn that bad unit good. Yet GW has created a detachment system that essentially allows for unlimited spamming without consequences that matter. Now you can highlight Command Points as a way they have tried to counter this, but even the worst of the spam lists are battle forged and include 1-2 +1 CP detachments, meaning they still have 4-5 command points, more then enough to see these lists through 3 turns with the command point spamming restrictions, and in all likelihood with how most of these spanned lists work, one way or another they game is going to be over for practical purposes at that point. The new first turn rule might solve alpha strike issues, but not spamming. And the new troop objective rule at first glance helps, but when a balanced list will almost always be wiped before the end of the game in a tournament the point is kinda moot.

Needless to say all of this leads to a pretty dull competitive scene. The number of matched play detachments should be limited, or at the very least every army MUST include a batalion which can be upgraded to a brigade, or in 1k or less pt games downgraded to a patrol if desired. Additionally units in the same detachment probably should be required to have 2 keywords in common rather then 1 to be battleforged or something like that. I'm not great with rewriting rules idk what makes the most sense, but the route of the problem seems obvious to me and I feel like it is only truly fixable via a redesign of the detachment system. My only hope is that GW's new willingness to tweek the game system like they have been causes them to see the light on this as well. At the very least it seems like a pretty easy TO fix.

Any other idea's on this detachment thing? There is always going to be a couple common buildouts at tourneys and there will always be a "new hotness" build, I just don't want to see any more tournaments where every SM army is Guiliman and 5 of x vehicle.

You might want to look at a lot of those top tier lists first, quite alot of them revolve around a Battalion detachment as it is.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


Unlike other people, I do actually agree this would have worked, and the reason being is that in the past it did work. From 3rd to early 4th edition, everyone was basically locked by the standard FoC of 1 HQ, 2 Troops compulsory and 3 of each of HS, FA and Elites, as well as 4 additional Troop Choices. On top of this, GW imposed a further "1+" or "0-1" (or 0-2, 0-3, etc... Basically it meant there was a max of these units you could take even if you had more slots for them), as well as requiring Special Characters to have your opponent's Permissions and having minimum (and in one case, maximum) points limit where they could be fielded. All of this was done so units were not only balanced by points, but also by role and numbers. For Example, Troops often got things that other people got for much less, but you had to buy a ton of generic guys before unlocking the special choices. The most obvious of these was the Tactical Squad VS the Devastator Squad. In essence, Troops balanced out the rest of your army by being point sinks and meatshields, allowing everyone else to function as glass cannon specialists in other roles. Units that could heavily sway the playstyle of a certain army (such as the now defunct Pariahs) were given the 0-1 limitation, meaning one squad of them was all you got to field in your army even if you had 3 elite choices free. On the other side, to make sure you fielded the necessary troops and didn't unintentionally gimp yourself into a corner, some troops or HQs were given the 1+ requirement (the only one off the top of my head I can remember were Fire Warriors), meaning you had to have them in your army; no excuses. It's telling that the two most infamous lists during this era was the one that had a hilariously awesome troop choice (Tau Fish of Fury, which was technically their Dedicated Transport for their troops) or the one that broke almost all of these limitations (Iron Warriors and their 4 HS choices and the removal of the 0-1 restriction on Obliterators, as well as the Forge World Armoured Company list, back when Leman Russes were actually terrifying).

Back then, whenever they did change up the FoC, there was usually a designer's note saying that you should be sensible when designing lists with them, as they weren't thoroughly tested and are no way considered as balanced as the ones that followed the normal FoC. Note that this went both ways; I remember Biel Tan Aspect Warriors and the Ulthwe Seer council were powerful, but something like Deathwing was sometimes found to be wanting, as they only had terminators, land raiders and dreadnoughts (and if they happened to go up against World Eaters...oh boy.).

This is essentially what I was poorly trying to articulate. And it didn't always work back then either but GW also wasnt taking nearly as proactive an approach to point balancing. Now I feel like it'd work better. Point balancing alone doesn't work. Some force org requirements in a game like this is needed for balance. I know especially in the 40k community many disagree.

I would rather prefer the freedom of being able to make, say a full army of Fast Attack. Or even Heavy Support.

The fact of the matter is that people will game the system with whatever rules that get put into place. It has always been and always will be. Putting requirements back on the FOC limits the creativity for building armies, even fluffy ones. It also limits the usefulness of other armies who rely more on specific slots.

Many people get mad at "spam" but no one really gets mad at it unless it's done with a very points efficient unit. Limiting how many of a specific type of units can kill armies such as the green tide, Harlequins, Eldar Jetbikes (Saim-Hann). Forcing people to take a more balanced FOC is painful to some armies who don't really have good units in some slots.

In the end, the whole thing revolves around people playing the game for different reasons. If I want to play the game to WAAC (tournaments where money is at stake or maybe I'm just a really competitive person), then I will pick the most points efficient units I can. If I play for a fun fluffy style, then I'll pick units that make the most sense in the army I'm conveying. Neither one is wrong, it's just a different way people play. People need to get over the "he doesn't play like I do, so he's wrong" mentality. If you are going to tournaments with a fun fluffy list and not a WAAC list, then you need to prepare to probably lose. It's just the nature of competitive gaming in general. If I play a first person shooter and I really like pistols, I'm not going to win tournaments with pistols against much more powerful weaponry. It makes even less sense to complain about it.

tripchimeras wrote:
The number of matched play detachments should be limited, or at the very least every army MUST include a batalion which can be upgraded to a brigade

Nah.

If the units are broken, the units should be fixed. Or are you going to try to say a list of a couple vanguard detachments of terminators is OPPLSNERF level?

All this "fix" will do is make people take a few barebones troops units as a "tax". It screws over a lot of fluffy lists that aren't exactly OP to begin with while not actually fixing the power lists in question (scions are troops, I should remind you).

Troops already have advantage in obsec. They don't need to be made mandatory.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Unlike other people, I do actually agree this would have worked, and the reason being is that in the past it did work.

Haha, hahahahahah, haaaa... ah... oh wait you're serious?

Those past editions weren't balanced at all. Arguably, 8th is actually more balanced than most of them.

 Melissia wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Unlike other people, I do actually agree this would have worked, and the reason being is that in the past it did work.

Haha, hahahahahah, haaaa... ah... oh wait you're serious?

Those past editions weren't balanced at all. Arguably, 8th is actually more balanced than most of them.

Remember, rule #1 is still a thing.

And 3rd early 3rd was way more balanced than 8th. Note that this doesn't mean 3rd is *good*; It was balanced because it took nearly everything remotely flavourful and dumped it. A 3rd Ed Chaplain was literally a generic SM Commander with a 4+ save and a free power weapon (not joking, the cost of his power weapon was literally the only difference between him and a Commander equipped with an Iron Halo and Power Weapon).

I like the Detachments. They let me play fluffy forces like Ravenwing and Deathwing but still hang in there with command points.

Its early and I could be proven wrong, but if there are emergent balance issues in 8th I don't think that they are related to Detachments.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
And 3rd early 3rd was way more balanced than 8th. Note that this doesn't mean 3rd is *good*; It was balanced because it took nearly everything remotely flavourful and dumped it.

I'd actually still argue early 8th was better balanced than early third. Balance has been disrupted by the codices as always, but 3rd was full of power builds in the upper tournament level of play, too. Whereas in 8th you have a lot more variety, and outside of upper-tournament level play things aren't actually that bad.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I like the Detachments. They let me play fluffy forces like Ravenwing and Deathwing but still hang in there with command points.

Its early and I could be proven wrong, but if there are emergent balance issues in 8th I don't think that they are related to Detachments.

Character mechanic abuse is going to be the up and coming new thing. I'm calling it now. Taking a lot of "characters" and abusing the mechanics where you can't even shoot people since the closest ones would be in CQC or out of sight behind terrain. Besides that, really the biggest problem is really just unit balance. Being able to take 100 units of something wouldn't be that bad if said unit is balanced. When it becomes a problem, don't blame the FOC, blame the balance. And GW is doing a good job balancing that while retaining the ability to create the lists you want.

That said, I think abuse of characters is a counter only to shooting armies. There's no restriction on charging characters like there is for shooting.

Easy Balance Fixes...

Delete Imperium and Aeldari keywords
Re-introduce weapon LoS on Vehicles
Fix Cover Mechanics
Prevent First Player Turn 1 Deep Strikes
Reintroduce a FEW core USR


Smaller stuff...
Give Flamers Ignore Cover
Nerf Plasma Guns
Fix Plasma Guns to no longer Slain models
Find a way to fix Blasts...
Flyers Slots removed from most Detachments (Patrol, Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider). Reduced to 1 in Battalion. Airwing Detachment changed to 2-5 instead of 3-5.
Dedicated Transport slot reduced from most Detachments to 0-3 from 0-10 (Patrol, Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider). Reduced to 0-6 in Battalion.


Experimental Stuff
Ally system based on Detachments. Each Detachment must share a Keyword. Allied Detachment would be a Detachment in which the selected Keyword was different than your main Detachment.
Bringing Allied Detachment would cost CP. An Army with 0 CP is considered Disorganized, and no longer Battle Forged.

Expand S&T values that are used, using both lower and higher values on the spectrum. Introduce a new rule stating 3x Toughness = no damage