Some musings on Faction Tactics

[Dragonlover]

I was gonna post this in the Eldar rumours thread, but it felt a bit derailing so I figured I'd bud it off.

 

I've seen a few complaints/gripes about the fact that the army wide abilities are being used in multiple armies, so just wanted to talk about why I think it's a good thing.

 

I suspect that at some point during the design phase they came up with twenty or so abilities that could be applied to the majority of an army and wouldn't hideously break things. This is in stark contrast to previous editions, where every army got bespoke stuff that varied wildly in power level.

 

I like it, feels like they're taking a leaf out of the MTG designers playbook. It also helps establish a baseline power level for <FACTION> Tactics, so we should in theory be reassured that no one faction is going to get something broken, because we have plenty of examples of the power level they're aiming for.

 

I should also point out that I'm not talking about if they've picked the right abilities flavour wise for any given faction, I'm talking purely from a design perspective. The inherent problem with flavour is you can use it to justify pretty much anything should or shouldn't be allowed.

 

Side note: I wish whoever the lead designer is would write a column similar to Mark Rosewaters Making Magic. I know I'd read the hell out of it.

 

So yeah, some thoughts on why them sticking to the same roster of abilities is a good thing, for the long term health of the game if nothing else.

 

Dragonlover

[the jeske]

yeah well the thing is that this was done to streamline stuff and streach codex books over multiple books. First you get the index, then you get the codex. Then after a year or two, your getting an AoS style update. And what you do want to avoid is some sort of[i know this is impossible] optimal build, specially if you could get it for cheap. The draigo+3boxs of paladins=my army is finished, is never suppose to happen again.

 

I also don't think that the comperation to MtG is a proper one. Sure keyword or simiular mechanics are good[specially in core rules]. but if you give 5 armies the same infiltration/can't shot at me chapter tactic, you will end up with one army that is going to be able to use it for shoting builds[having better shoting then the other 5], one will make a melee[or best melee] version of the builds and 3-4 will plain make no sense as they would be weaker version of the same build.

[Dragonlover]

My MTG comparison was more from the fact it feels like they're actually designing a game, rather than just going with whatever sounds cool.

 

Dragonlover

[Zuvassin]

I'm wondering if another possibility for the cross-army similarities is that this sets up the possibility of a future set of generic rules for a Create Your Own Chapter/Warband/Regiment/Craftworld/Forgeworld/etc type approach.

 

That is, instead of having to do separate Custom Chapter Tactics and Eldar Craftworld rulesets, GW could potentially introduce a universal Army Faction Creator via Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, or as its own separate supplement. Players could pick from 1-2 bonuses, with maybe some negatives to offset selecting multiple bonuses or one particularly powerful bonus, as well as from a set list of traits, strategems, and relics.

[Damo1701]

Way I see it is that it feels more like there is no real effort on the part of GW to decide whether specific <FACTION> Tactics are even right for a particular faction.

 

Now, in regards to the Eldar you mentioned, I've seen on Facebook an awful lot of moaning and griping that certain things need to happen so that Eldar are auto-win again. Add to that the fact that many pointy eared players are moaning about the fact that the faction bonuses they are getting sound (to them) underpowered, especially when you look at the shenanigans they could pull pre-codex, and most of it is infuriating for people who have to face these things that are centred around an easy ride against your chosen faction.

 

At the end of things, once we have a codex for every faction, sub-faction and whatever else GW gets in their heads during an "odd smoke session, we aren't going to be able to say what is OP and what isn't.

 

My regular Guard opponent, he says a Punisher firing 40 shots at BS 2+ is incredibly OP... Eldar players are complaining their announced rules aren't OP enough...

 

Where will it end? That's the question.

 

Getting fluff right on the table is next to impossible. Otherwise marines wouldn't die in droves, light infantry would be decimated by bolster fire, and Girlyman would still be in stasis...

[the jeske]

Well, as much as there was talk about 2 years of testing, I can imagine why with a big rules shift, they weren't interested in experiments with rules. Specially when in a year or two they can make updates, and get cash for those. The ideal state is when army is just below being ok, so that stuff kind of a works[not very good/good], so people try to experiment [and buy more stuff]. And when the update comes, they get more incite to buy more stuff.

 

 

But the real quesiton for me is, can the studio actually design rules. to use the MtG example, even if we ignore the playtest aspect, people that design blocks are good at design. GW  people are professionals[aka they are being paid for what they do], but their track record isn't that good.[and am ignoring stuff like mid edition policy changes, chapter house stuff screwing up codex design etc]. MtG do sometimes drop the ball, but then they are let go. GW has a history of nerfing or over buffing stuff, because the people writing a book thinks it is going to be "cool".

[Adeptus]

It's important to remember that MtG is a card game that changes it's meta through constant new releases. GW can't take the same approach. I think once we see the release of AoS style annual compendiums, we'll see GW really taking charge of their game balance.

[Schlitzaf]

I do not want to derail discussion on the Rumor Forum, but alot of these arguments of "samey" sound alot like how someone complaints I have heard about 4th and "Doesn't feel different" for casters and melee. Does it need too? Or in other words, mechanics are as mechanics does. But you choose how something feels. Like my tactic doesn't really feel right for Templars, and my Vostroyan while awesome, doesn't scream 'super quality'. But what imagining my men screaming litanies of hate, as prepare to begin their charge, wait out of breath. Suddenly they see the enemy and get renewed vigor. 

 

Just because an all Khornate army has a banner that gives them reroll charge, doesn't make them feel the same. Khorne its not a falter of breath but instead a second of hope, the enemy thinks you have paused. Then you smile grin and yell blood for blood god. Ramming yourself at the enemy lines as you cut through them like swiss. A moment instead you basked in the blood you shall spill, which you realize lost the initiative. For Iron Hands and Uthwe. 

 

A Space Marine holds his hand blocking a lethal sniper shot. A once in a million defense, it is harmless nestled within his bionic gauntlet. You turn and lift your bolter then counter fire. An the unexpected attack that didn't kill you by a razors edge. Or in a heat of a duel, you roll and your enemy strikes a fatal blow only to look and realize in horror. What you struck was a bionic heart that despite the gaping hole is still functional. 

 

That same instance you take a shot, and Eldar Exarch is not even their anymore. They sliently and effortlessly step aside, the thousands of futures they see, managed to pick out the right one. They then look at the hapless sniper and raise their pistol, as you try to run. Before you even move you're already dead. In combat you took an Autarch offgaurd with a shield bash, but then where you thought you'd find flesh is empty air. The unexpected attack, was avoid as the Autarch experience a flash of the future he slipped backwards avoiding your strike.

 

Both are simply 6+ FNP, but neither of those feel the same to me.

[Noserenda]

I certainly like the idea, the more you push for unique rules the more likely you are to get duff or OP ones, better to keep the core simple and add variety through the mix of stats and stratagems around them. Then again as i get older it seems increasingly appealing to keep the rules simple and do more with that toolset rather than constantly adding new exceptions and clauses.

[the jeske]

I do not want to derail discussion on the Rumor Forum, but alot of these arguments of "samey" sound alot like how someone complaints I have heard about 4th and "Doesn't feel different" for casters and melee. Does it need too? Or in other words, mechanics are as mechanics does. But you choose how something feels. Like my tactic doesn't really feel right for Templars, and my Vostroyan while awesome, doesn't scream 'super quality'. But what imagining my men screaming litanies of hate, as prepare to begin their charge, wait out of breath. Suddenly they see the enemy and get renewed vigor. 

 

Both are simply 6+ FNP, but neither of those feel the same to me.

well they do not in the sense. That you sit down, look at the same rules and you have 3 armies/factions/whatever with a +6DR, but one of those 3 sports re-rolls, buffs to those DR rolls models that actualy get a lot better with a second save [chaff for example]. And you end up with 1 army using the rule being good, and two armies being bad, so not being used. Now if those 2 other armies have some other good stuff about them, it is ok. But if they [look at BA aka red marines in 8ths meta right now] not, then people that may want to play those armies are in a bind. Because either they have not play what they want or play something that clearly worse[at best, in worse case scenarios you get something like EC vs GK in 5th. where point cost and game play are the same, but one side gets  free psychic powers, good upgrades and army synergy, and costs less].

 

So yeah same rules, on top same type game play does not help. And while of course someone can play Red marines with mefiston swelled up on blood to G-man size[same model], not everyone may like it. Plus it does tend to switch a community to 2-3 lists being run by everyone and winners beind determinated by who goes first/gets better re-rolls etc.

 

 

 

It's important to remember that MtG is a card game that changes it's meta through constant new releases. GW can't take the same approach. I think once we see the release of AoS style annual compendiums, we'll see GW really taking charge of their game balance

 

Well a codex every 2-3 months should be meta changing[unless it is really bad and people just ignore it, or it is a copy past]. But even if the udpates were slower, they still have WD, they did update in past[i know, for "free" the forbiden word]. Nothing stops them to make a detachament or group of detachements linked to lets say a new box or two. You know, the way they kinnd of a do with AoS mixed boxs.

As the 1 year updates goes, i hope they are nothing like the AoS ones. Because the AoS do 2 things. Buff sigmarines, and nerf legacy armies. And we really do not need a nerf to legacy armies right now.

[Mileposter]

 

I do not want to derail discussion on the Rumor Forum, but alot of these arguments of "samey" sound alot like how someone complaints I have heard about 4th and "Doesn't feel different" for casters and melee. Does it need too? Or in other words, mechanics are as mechanics does. But you choose how something feels. Like my tactic doesn't really feel right for Templars, and my Vostroyan while awesome, doesn't scream 'super quality'. But what imagining my men screaming litanies of hate, as prepare to begin their charge, wait out of breath. Suddenly they see the enemy and get renewed vigor. 

 

Both are simply 6+ FNP, but neither of those feel the same to me.

well they do not in the sense. That you sit down, look at the same rules and you have 3 armies/factions/whatever with a +6DR, but one of those 3 sports re-rolls, buffs to those DR rolls models that actualy get a lot better with a second save [chaff for example]. And you end up with 1 army using the rule being good, and two armies being bad, so not being used. Now if those 2 other armies have some other good stuff about them, it is ok. But if they [look at BA aka red marines in 8ths meta right now] not, then people that may want to play those armies are in a bind. Because either they have not play what they want or play something that clearly worse[at best, in worse case scenarios you get something like EC vs GK in 5th. where point cost and game play are the same, but one side gets  free psychic powers, good upgrades and army synergy, and costs less].

 

So yeah same rules, on top same type game play does not help. And while of course someone can play Red marines with mefiston swelled up on blood to G-man size[same model], not everyone may like it. Plus it does tend to switch a community to 2-3 lists being run by everyone and winners beind determinated by who goes first/gets better re-rolls etc.

 

This seems really off. I'm not sure what you're getting at? You're stating that most sit down and build their armies based solely on the Chapter Tactic/Craftworld Attribute/Regiment Doctrine, which seems far and away from the norm. You've also used an army that doesn't have a codex yet - and thus doesn't have any of what the discussion is about - as an example of how having similar Chapter Tactics is bad. I don't see any support for your argument in your examples.

 

Further, even should your supposition about the end result be correct, the only way it becomes "a community of 2-3 lists being run by everyone" is if everyone is only playing the lists they have because it's the FOTM and has little to no love for the game/army itself. I only know of one section of the hobby that fosters that mentality - and it doesn't seem to me to be the larger section.

 

I get that it's a concern for the more 'official' tournament circuit, where the bigger wallet wins. But I think it's seriously underselling the creativity of genuine players. Whenever the tournament meta settles into something there's always some sort of upset list that comes around. I think that the even split between reused and unique faction traits is going to keep the game varied enough, especially when you consider the different ways each army can play beforehand.

[the jeske]

It is not a FotM thing. you have to armies game play is the same [lets say they are short range armies]. but one is 6th ed SW and the other is 6th csm. From 8th ed you can build a razor list [which isn't the only list, that can be build] for marines. You can also build a razor list for BA[and it is the only valid list for BAs right now]. the marine razor list is always better. So if you want to play BAs your not only limited by the codex/index [armies are not created equal], but also the same type of list is worse for the weaker faction. It is/would be better to get different chapter tactics/sg for each army [well and good codex/index too of course], because there is a bigger chance that with 3 different sets of rules all 3 will be playable. When with 3[or more] of same sets of rules one, maybe two [that is assuming melee vs shoting is balanced] are will work at all.

 

And it has nothing to do with tournaments. Tournament like top builds, the fewer the easier it is to test and the easier it is to train/meta for specific tournament packs. What such rules writing does is to affect non tournament games the most. Because if two people sit down to play and one has a 6th SW army and the other a 6th ed CSM army, one of those two is going to question the skills of rules writers.

[Adeptus]

 

It's important to remember that MtG is a card game that changes it's meta through constant new releases. GW can't take the same approach. I think once we see the release of AoS style annual compendiums, we'll see GW really taking charge of their game balance

Well a codex every 2-3 months should be meta changing[unless it is really bad and people just ignore it, or it is a copy past]. But even if the udpates were slower, they still have WD, they did update in past[i know, for "free" the forbiden word]. Nothing stops them to make a detachament or group of detachements linked to lets say a new box or two. You know, the way they kinnd of a do with AoS mixed boxs.

As the 1 year updates goes, i hope they are nothing like the AoS ones. Because the AoS do 2 things. Buff sigmarines, and nerf legacy armies. And we really do not need a nerf to legacy armies right now.

 

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. If the MtG people see a particular thing is becoming a problem, then in the next release they can issue a card that directly counters that problem. In this way they can change the meta. It's much harder for GW to do the same since all their units require models, and something released for a single faction will not translate into other factions. Also, GW doesn't have a clearly defined competitive tournament standard format, so they run the risk of ruining casual games while attemtping to balance competitive games.

 

Personally this is one reason why I love the distinction between Points and Power Levels. Points are specifically for matched play. They can tweak the points of things till the cows come home and it won't make a lick of difference to those of us who use PL instead. It will literally only affect tournament play. But I'm getting a bit off topic. My point was just that it's not really fair to point to contrast 40K to games like X Wing or MtG when it comes to balance since they're operating in very different formats.

 

I don't play AoS so I can't comment on how those books work, but an annual re-balance of the factions would be a very welcome addition to 40K. So hopefully that's how it works out.

[the jeske]

yeah, but codex are not done 1 week before they get sold. MtG had very few instances when whole sets were bad or broken[am not saying it never happened, it did I have been there]. GW knows their stuff 6 months in advance and some stuff even sooner. So either they are incompetent people writing the books or the books are writen without any care for how the rules actualy are. And I do not know which of the two would be the worse thing to be true.

 

Plus they do instant nerfs, the SR thing for example. they have rewriten whole army books, when balls have been droped on them so hard, people weren't buying them. IMO the main problem with w40k right now is that the last 3 editions were made with haste and with IP protection in mind, then making a good game. The streamline to rules we get in w40k is not caused by thought through game play mechanics, but lack of time to write proper stuff for legacy armies. Just compare the DG book and the every other codex [save maybe  the marine book, or more precise the chad marine stuff], it is as if they were writen for two different game.

[Mileposter]

Being a developer myself, I know I'm a little sensitive to developer bashing. But unless you're actually part of the GW creative process, let's leave the broad statements about their intent or aims out of it, eh? There's no way for us to know unless they tell us.

 

A note on publishing: They know their deadlines 6 months in advance. Doesn't mean all the content within said book is done in advance. True, the rules portions are likely finalized some time beforehand so as to allow for playtesting, but who knows how much they're require to cram into that time. I've spoken about game design and balancing in other threads - but this issue is exactly why you see MMO's never stop receiving balance updates. In a game with this many big numbers, it is difficult for even the veteran developers to get balance down. Streamlining some rules bonuses only helps you get a more even game across all playing fields. It isn't a mark of laziness by itself. It could be part of a 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' balancing gambit. Won't be able to adequately judge until all of the codices (or at least most) are on the table. Even then, there will likely be even more balancing adjustments after that via White Dwarf or Chapter Approved. This is a positive model to follow.

 

To re-touch on the previous bit, I disagree with the premise that you have "two armies game play is the same" - each faction has specific strengths and weaknesses. None of them play the same unless you intentionally try building them the same - at which point, it makes sense that one would play to that style better than the other: Chapter Tactics, Stratagems, and Relics should enhance their inherent traits. 8th has done well to bring that difference to the fore. The fact that several of the subfaction bonuses are the same helps enhance the inherent differences of that faction's playstyle, and topping that with their simplicity allows them to be used in a variety of unexpected ways.

 

I could babble on, because I love game design, but before I travel off point - the TLDR is that this issue is not a binary one. It's not cut and dry.

[Claws and Effect]

Part of the problem is that GWs in house playtesters are just testing to make sure the rules WORK. Then they pass those rules on to thousands of people who are deliberately looking for ways to combine rules and find loopholes for a competitive advantage.

 

The generic nature of faction tactics seems intentionally designed to close as many of those loopholes as possible while still allowing people to build a competitive list.