Character buff the way of the future?

[General Strike]

With the release of five 8th edition codices I have noticed an emphasis on heavy character use, spreading the buffing through out the army. While for Marine variants it seems like Apothecaries and Lords/Captains, the Death Guard take it further. With them being the first truly new army of 8th, they have many elite and HQ characters to hand out buffs. Do you think this is the way of the 40k future? How many characters do you bring?

[Gentlemanloser]

As many as i can fit in.

 

Grand Masters in NDK suits (vehicle characters with reroll aura) and Apothecaries are two of the stand out units from my codex.

 

Character is a powerful rule in itself. Just look at Culexes assassins.

 

Being able to deny (mostly) being shot at. While bringing force multiplying buffs (that work on themselves and other characters, so you don't really need to bring max size 'troop' units) makes them amazing.

 

If NDK could assault units in the top floors of ruins, I'd probably run an entire army of them.

 

Edit. 4 Paladin with 1 Hammer. 233 points. 3 Hammer attacks. 12 wounds.

 

2 Apothecaries with hammers. 206 points. 8 hammer attacks. 10W. Regen 2d3 wounds per turn.

 

Plus a second smite. And if you're shooting one apothecary you cannot shoot the other until the first is dead.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[the jeske]

With the release of five 8th edition codices I have noticed an emphasis on heavy character use, spreading the buffing through out the army. While for Marine variants it seems like Apothecaries and Lords/Captains, the Death Guard take it further. With them being the first truly new army of 8th, they have many elite and HQ characters to hand out buffs. Do you think this is the way of the 40k future? How many characters do you bring?

yes, because it makes you buy more models. If you get buffs or auras through rule sets[lets say like a chapter tactic] it probably won't entice you to buy models you don't want to buy. But if the only source of good a good buff is a model you would never had bought in the past [like lets say a food cpt/chaptermaster], you will buy him now. Plus everytime GW misses overlaping buffs interactions a new good list or sub type of list is born.

[Adeptus]

Edit. 4 Paladin with 1 Hammer. 233 points. 3 Hammer attacks. 12 wounds.

 

2 Apothecaries with hammers. 206 points. 8 hammer attacks. 10W. Regen 2d3 wounds per turn.

 

Plus a second smite. And if you're shooting one apothecary you cannot shoot the other until the first is dead.

To be fair, the Paladins also get 12 Falchion attacks in addition to their 3 Hammer attacks. I agree though, that pound-for-pound the Apothecaries are better and I think they probably need a raise in points cost.

[the jeske]

I never understood that type of "fixing". Good stuff should not be made bad, it is the bad stuff that should be made good. What non horde/non skew stuff needs in w40k is the eldar 7th treatment, points lowering and better rules. 500pts of elite stuff is no where near as good as same 500pts spent on characters[specially imperial when one can play around with culexus builds] or horde.

If you rise the point costs of apothecaries it won't suddenly make paladins[or terminators] valid, but it will make apothecaries a dead option.

[deathspectersgt7]

Yes. And that is why I will not play anymore regular games .

[Mileposter]

Balancing a game is always a difficult endeavor. Especially one as large / numbers heavy as 40k. There's always formulas you develop that work for some parts but not for others, themes and strategies you craft into the system that skew your math in unexpected ways, verifications that come out positive in one scenario but not another. Often times with portions of the system or product you're not allowed to change due to dictations from higher ups. And then there's always the players, who come up with combinations and circumstances you wouldn't have been able to foresee even when it seems obvious to those playing the game. All of these things become intensely more aggravated and exaggerated once you're required to complete them on a deadline.

 

Having worked in that industry myself, I'm unwilling to criticize or praise their intent or process without having been in the room - and I encourage others to do the same - but I sincerely doubt they specifically came up with this style of gameplay and specifically changed it from 7th just to force people to buy more models. Intent to play the game at all sells more models. It's far more likely that issues of model-vs-model balance are the pieces that fell through the cracks. There's always a lot of cracks.

 

Whether we approve of their method or not, feel it's the right way or not, it's clearly working. The game is played more now and they are selling more now than before. Yay success.

 

That being said, I agree with the sentiment that additive balance is overall better than retractive balance. Better overall to bring something up in strength, or give it an additional role to fill, or likewise. The place for retractive balance is in the case where a unit or playstyle is more powerful than they intended. For 40k, I would expect that to take the form of stat changes rather than point adjustments. Most point adjustments should be in the 'reductions' column as that grants better access to possible outcomes. Statistically speaking, balancing priority should be: ability tweak > stat increase > point reduction > options tweak > ability addition > stat decrease > point increase > ability rework.

 

On the original topic: I, for one, rather like that 8th has a character focus. It drives tactics on the by-and-large, is a fantastic alternative to the way HQ's were handled in the past, and encourages armies to promote synergy. I also personally happen to really like that it brings some purpose back to Snipers. I dislike some of the results that the focus on Characters has brought about, but for what I'm seeing that's been largely errors in the use of Keywords rather than the core system. For example, I dislike that 'Imperium' and 'Aeldari' are Faction Keywords. Lists such as the Imperial Soup and Ynnari-without-Ynnari concepts would not be recurring themes if this had not been the case. Is that a positive or negative change? My opinion says it is negative, but only time and the raw data will tell.

[Adeptus]

I never understood that type of "fixing". Good stuff should not be made bad, it is the bad stuff that should be made good. What non horde/non skew stuff needs in w40k is the eldar 7th treatment, points lowering and better rules. 500pts of elite stuff is no where near as good as same 500pts spent on characters[specially imperial when one can play around with culexus builds] or horde.

If you rise the point costs of apothecaries it won't suddenly make paladins[or terminators] valid, but it will make apothecaries a dead option.

Paladins are already boss. They're right in the sweet spot of cost/efficiency. Apothecaries aren't just good, they're too good. Literally underpriced, IMO.

[Demoulius]

I never understood that type of "fixing". Good stuff should not be made bad, it is the bad stuff that should be made good. What non horde/non skew stuff needs in w40k is the eldar 7th treatment, points lowering and better rules. 500pts of elite stuff is no where near as good as same 500pts spent on characters[specially imperial when one can play around with culexus builds] or horde.

If you rise the point costs of apothecaries it won't suddenly make paladins[or terminators] valid, but it will make apothecaries a dead option.

That 'fxing' that you are referring to is needed to have a balanced game where each army is viable and has strong options. You cant fix everything just with points alone. If someone is just TO good because it offers to much utility or somesuch it needs to be adressed.