Balancing 40K

[Beams]

Where do you draw the line though? Can Orks team up with Imperials on a routine basis? What about Eldar as they actually have fought side by side?

 

For that matter, surely Chaos can team up with anyone who will have them since Chaos?

 

There has to be a line and it may as well be in the most balancing manner possible.

 

If you want your unique and themed collection then play with it. Ask your opponent what they think about taking on your take on an Imperial Crusade etc. Use Matched Play rules with agreement or other Open War/Narrative ways of play. Have a great time.

 

Don't just rock up to a store and expect me to be happy to take on your Tempestus Scions, Custodes and Leman Russ tanks without notice. Which is what Matched Play is for.

You've been able to ally for too long to suddenly invalidate people's collections just because you don't like allies.

 

If you think they are too strong, buff mono faction.

[The Unseen]

 

Where do you draw the line though? Can Orks team up with Imperials on a routine basis? What about Eldar as they actually have fought side by side?

 

For that matter, surely Chaos can team up with anyone who will have them since Chaos?

 

There has to be a line and it may as well be in the most balancing manner possible.

 

If you want your unique and themed collection then play with it. Ask your opponent what they think about taking on your take on an Imperial Crusade etc. Use Matched Play rules with agreement or other Open War/Narrative ways of play. Have a great time.

 

Don't just rock up to a store and expect me to be happy to take on your Tempestus Scions, Custodes and Leman Russ tanks without notice. Which is what Matched Play is for.

You've been able to ally for too long to suddenly invalidate people's collections just because you don't like allies.

 

If you think they are too strong, buff mono faction.

Nobody is talking about invalidating anything.

Just don't expect your soup made of 3 different factions to be played when balance is the primary goal.

 

There's 2 whole entire modes of play that are wide open, literally.

 

You buff mono faction and unless it's done very carefully, it just becomes a de facto buff for people allying the buffed stuff in.

Just like nerfing units that are souped regularly leads to paradoxically more soups.

If you nerf guardsmen infantry squads into the ground, the next best cheap way to fill a battalion will be found and thatll just be spammed in its place, except now guard won't have a good troops choice either, and people who run mono guard now would be incentivized to run a soup list to get non-useless troops again.

[A.T.]

That's fair. Don't like it? Don't mix codices!

 

And how is that any different from GW invalidating half the units in whatever codex you use and telling you to 'deal with it' ?

Allies have been around too long and become too pervasive to simply scrap without screwing over a lot of players. Some factions have been built and sold that way since 3rd edition (daemonhunters) or even 2nd ed (sisters).

 

A better way to balance allies is with individual codex synergy and unit requirements.

The first is straightforward enough - command points only used by the faction that generates them, faith/waaaaugh/synapse/etc benefits based on unit size and count.

The second - take X amount of faction units to unlock named characters/lords of war, no faction benefits (i.e. chapter tactics) below Y points.

[Schlitzaf]

I think folks are trying to hard to discourage allies by sticks and not enough to incentive mono builds with carrots. The whole more shared faction Keyword + CP, was because the factions that a large list of allies also tended to have the most keywords.

 

Armies like Orks and Tau? Cannot ally anyways. So giving an incentive to stay mono is pointless. While I would support adding an additonal Keyword for inner soup codexes like Tau (Fire Caste, and Auxillary then maybe T’au (Species), (Pack) for Kroot and (Flock) for Vespid. So Tau Fire Warrior have, T’au Empire, Fire, (S’ept), and Kroot would have T’au Empire, Auxillary, Kroot) An auxiliary force in a Tau would only give +1. But a pure auxiliary composed of Kroot, and Vespid would give +2. While a pure Fire Warrior Force would have +3, while a T’au Force with Fire Caste and Air Caste would get +2.

 

And even in codexes that enables more mono elite armies to get a small boost. Deathwing get +4 (Imperium, DA, Astartes, and Deathwing) for sake of example. While units always meant to be attached to larger forced like Assassins suffer, but you atleast +1. (I don’t thinks it’s possible to not get +1).

 

What also cool is that it would cross codex units that share faction, SoS, Astropaths, Primaris and Wyrdvane, for example gain a real tangible mechanical connection that wouldn’t exist otherwise. I know I am beating this poor horse to death. But I have yet to see an example which actually incentives mono lists without just being a stick, beside my own.

 

Any argument that is prefaced “well an army only should be drawn from one codex” is non-argument. You have no right to tell me how to play with my plastic army men. The whole point of detachments is that it means you cannot just take the best. If your list only calls for a 1-2 counter attack units. You either lose 1 CP, your tactics or have pay a tax somewhere on a unit you do not want.

 

And if you want to make that argument, any unique unit that is (Keyword) locked like Crusader Squads should also be disallowed. Sense the (Keyword) locked Units are also part of tactics implicitly. (Well mechanically they aren’t, but it’s understood that using BT Force Unlocks Crusader Squads and Tactics).

 

And “200” Points and a Warlord Trait which is the average cost a guard detachment that gives you a net +2 CP, is not an insigificant price to play. And a 700 Point Brigade, is just under a third of your point. And finally I’ll reiterate, your personal desires and your personal view on how the game should be played. Is no more important than how I view the game should be played. I don’t like LoW, and dislike sitting across.

 

I will not and shall not ask for a LoW ban. I might politely decline a game vs a LoW. But there is no reason that a player who spent painstaking hours to make a Knight Titan, should be told that they cannot play it anymore. They have every right to play the game as I do

[Tyriks]

Well that's simply not true. After all, I fielded Stormtrooper armies long before the rules allowed such things. Do you know how? I said to my friends "hey, I've house-ruled a Stormtrooper army! Do you want to take it on?" and they said yes.

 

But if you are just going to take on a stranger, you should not be bringing allies - you should be restricted to one Codex.

 

Alternatively, you can be free to bring your soup armies... but you don't get Regimental Doctrines, Chapter Tactics, etc. and you only get the base 3 Command Points. You sacrifice all those other perks for the ability to mix codices. That's fair. Don't like it? Don't mix codices!

It's fine that works in your meta. A lot of them refuse to do anything other than what the book appears to say. If the rulebook says matched play can't have allies, my knights will never see the table again.

 

Further, Knights and AdMech are the same codex, but different factions. They were designed to be fielded together. Saying they can't ally anymore completely invalidates them. Saying that bringing them together nullifies all dogmas, relics and stratagems makes them unplayable against any codex army, despite that I'm bringing them exactly as I was intended to. That's not a solution, it's an overreaction.

 

The problem isn't that allies exist. The problem is that you are heavily rewarded for bringing them. Now, you could say that your primary detachment keeps their tactics, relics and stratagems but allied detachments do not, which would still curb abuse and would logically make more sense (Raven Guard won't forget how to be sneaky just because there's an assassin around, but if they are following an Ultramarine's orders they won't be doing what they normally would anyway).

[Beams]

 

 

Where do you draw the line though? Can Orks team up with Imperials on a routine basis? What about Eldar as they actually have fought side by side?

 

For that matter, surely Chaos can team up with anyone who will have them since Chaos?

 

There has to be a line and it may as well be in the most balancing manner possible.

 

If you want your unique and themed collection then play with it. Ask your opponent what they think about taking on your take on an Imperial Crusade etc. Use Matched Play rules with agreement or other Open War/Narrative ways of play. Have a great time.

 

Don't just rock up to a store and expect me to be happy to take on your Tempestus Scions, Custodes and Leman Russ tanks without notice. Which is what Matched Play is for.

You've been able to ally for too long to suddenly invalidate people's collections just because you don't like allies.

 

If you think they are too strong, buff mono faction.

Nobody is talking about invalidating anything.

Just don't expect your soup made of 3 different factions to be played when balance is the primary goal.

 

There's 2 whole entire modes of play that are wide open, literally.

 

You buff mono faction and unless it's done very carefully, it just becomes a de facto buff for people allying the buffed stuff in.

Just like nerfing units that are souped regularly leads to paradoxically more soups.

If you nerf guardsmen infantry squads into the ground, the next best cheap way to fill a battalion will be found and thatll just be spammed in its place, except now guard won't have a good troops choice either, and people who run mono guard now would be incentivized to run a soup list to get non-useless troops again.

.

 

Space Marine players with 36(66 with forgeworld) options in HQ might not understand the need for allied options, but thats more than Sisters of battle (15/16), Grey Knights (32/34) or ad mech (17) have in their entire codexes.

 

Sisters of battle have 15/16 (counting forgeworld) options TOTAL. If you want to use Ministorum, you have to sacrifice your only psykic defense. Without allies, Sisters have ZERO options to defend from psykers, two melee options (the glass cannon Repentia and St. Celestine) and only two weapons (heavy Bolters and the insanely mediocre exorcist) that have a range greatly than 24", While Space Marines can do literally anything, since their design space is so wide with 95 options total, and 71 more from forgeworld. Sure some of the space marine options are subfaction specific, mediocre, or over costed, but at least it's a choice.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Beams

[Wargamer]

I will not and shall not ask for a LoW ban. I might politely decline a game vs a LoW. But there is no reason that a player who spent painstaking hours to make a Knight Titan, should be told that they cannot play it anymore. They have every right to play the game as I do

No, they don't have every right to play.

 

I don't have a right to bring pre-8th cards to Modern or Standard Magic games, but I can bring earlier stuff to other formats. Allied forces are no different - you want to bring them, bring them in the formats that allow them. Standard random pick-up game should not be one of those formats.

 

There's a place for Lords of War and alliances - and that's Apocalypse.

[Schlitzaf]

Why that your right to decide? Why is your belief of what a pick up game is define my games? Also multiple formats are inane. And one of the many reasons I don’t play MtG (Yes I know I how they work). Nothing in my list is anything I couldn’t do with just Codex Space Marines. Just be more boring. Why are your desires as player more valuable than my desires? You can always politely refuse to play a game vs soup in PickUp. If I run a list that isn’t BookLegal, my chance for a game is basically zero. Or I’ll hear moaning the moment I start trying to win.

[Captain Idaho]

No one is talking about invalidating models and armies. It should just have an associated cost to cherry pick units into an army.

 

No one here has the right to decide anything. That's an argument to a question not asked. GW are dealing with balancing the game and the proof is in the pudding - "soup" armies are broken as hell unless made very specifically for a theme and even then they enjoy the benefits of each Codex but often lose the weaknesses.

 

Case in point; Astra Millitarum are cheap and cheerful infantry backed up by heavy tanks that are all average in performance but in numbers quite lethal. Allow them to stick Custodes in and now they also have premium elites assault troops whilst outnumbering the opponent.

 

There should be a drawback.

[Schlitzaf]

You need an HQ, a Troop, or Three Troop, Two HQ, or three HQ etc. or you lose -1 CP or your Strategems, Warlord Trait, Tactics and Relics. Detachments are in built tax to prevent picking. With the specialty or ‘spam’ ones giving only 1 CP.

[Wargamer]

Except that you can mitigate that by bringing a cheap Guard Detachment with the ability to regenerate CPs, and then use it to regenerate CPs for your Marines / Mechanicum / Knights / Custodes / Sisters / Inquisitors. And even then, you're assuming that CPs are important to the army in question. Most armies are pretty potent because of their detachment abilities, which they can keep as long as each detachment is a pure force despite the whole army being mixed.

 

As has been stated numerous times here, armies don't sacrifice anything for bringing soups, but they do gain benefits.

[Schlitzaf]

You consider the costs minimal, that isn’t the same as negation or non-existent

[Lysere]

No one is talking about invalidating models and armies. It should just have an associated cost to cherry pick units into an army.

 

No one here has the right to decide anything. That's an argument to a question not asked. GW are dealing with balancing the game and the proof is in the pudding - "soup" armies are broken as hell unless made very specifically for a theme and even then they enjoy the benefits of each Codex but often lose the weaknesses.

 

Case in point; Astra Millitarum are cheap and cheerful infantry backed up by heavy tanks that are all average in performance but in numbers quite lethal. Allow them to stick Custodes in and now they also have premium elites assault troops whilst outnumbering the opponent.

 

There should be a drawback.

 

Does there need to be a drawback or would it be better to simply reward mono builds instead? I still firmly believe that other than some minor tweaks the second option will always be the better route. Also Schlitzaf you are mistaken, you are not the only one who would rather reward mono builds instead of punishing allies, I've been arguing that as well.

 

The cost for taking guard and custodes together should be in the command points. Any pure list should have more command points than with allies. How it's done doesn't matter to me really, just that there is an actual advantage to mono faction lists. I ran a list with some allied Custodes last night and it had 10 command points, a pure Custodes list might have half that. If reworked in a way that benefits mono builds it could end up with the pure Custodes list having more than even that. The important thing with such changes is that it will reward all armies just as well. Guard may need to use a lot of stratagems to make the most of their stuff, but with some of the proposed changes out there they could have almost double what they have now just by leaving the allies at home.

 

Also I don't feel keywords are the correct way to handle the bonus command points simply due to how some armies are designed as far as keywords go.

[Schlitzaf]

Lysere, the point of each degree of shared Keyword adds CP, is that In-Codex soup armies (Astra Militarum, Tau, Dark Eldar and Adeptus Mechanicus), gain less of a benefit if they choose to go InDex Soup. If the goal is incentivation of mono factional builds, then well yeah. The more specific in codex you are, the more CP. That is in fact the point. And reason armies that cannot soup (beside Tau), get least benefit. Is they cannot soup already and as such there is no reason, there needs to be an incentive to promote mono codex lists out of those armies.

 

@Lysere I apologize. You, Beams and Tvih have been with me as well.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[Wargamer]

If you rely on command points to reward mono lists, then you run into the problem that some armies just have terrible strategems.

 

Pure Marines should be better than Soup Marines. Pure Guard should be better than Soup Guard. The tradeoff is that soup can have both of those together.

[Schlitzaf]

.....why should pure be better than soup? That is an inane argument. The benefits you get are a more Tactically focused force. And have an army that is more coherent and buffs are universal. Edited February 20, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[A.T.]

If you rely on command points to reward mono lists, then you run into the problem that some armies just have terrible strategems.

Well that at least seems rather simple to fix.

 

Edit - come to think of it, that seems to fix a number of things.

 

If a faction can only use CPs generated by a detachment entirely consisting of its own units, and if higher CP stratagems are suitably more impressive (and potentially including compulsory 'relic' and 'named character' stratagems) then cherry picking becomes weaker. Models like Captain Smash for instance would be useless without at least a half-dozen CP generated by accompanying Blood Angels.

Edited February 20, 2018 by A.T.

[Mileposter]

I've long felt - and mistakenly posted, in at least one case! - that the faction bonuses are better balanced by being army-centric rather than detachment-centric.

 

That said, I think the simplest solution (i.e., the least effort applied for greatest effect) is a small change in wording for Stratagems, Relics, and Faction bonuses (Regimental Doctrines, Chapter Tactics, etc.). Change the opening lines to "If your army is battleforged and your warlord is from a (CODEX) detachment, you have access to the (THING) listed here...". Leave the rest of the game the way it is. Keep the faction keyword requirement to be Battleforged. Keep the CP assigned to Detachment.

 

It also neatly avoids the plethora of issues in trying to have one blanket statement cover the entire game, like several suggestions present.

 

Yes, this would still allow for armies to bring a detachment of Guard for CP farming... But those Guard won't get bonuses on top of that CP if the Warlord isn't in them - potentially making those Guard more of a hindrance to a list than a benefit. And if the Warlord is in them - then they can't be farming CP for other armies because only Guard Stratagems are on the table. It doesn't invalidate souping or factions that don't/won't have Codices all their own (like Inquisitors, Assassins, and Knights) and thus won't worry about losing Relics/Stratagems/Bonuses. It promotes mono armies while still providing benefit to bringing units that compliment your army from other codices.

 

EDIT:

Added benefit of being a change/fix that can be applied via Errata on Warhammer-Community or Chapter Approved without much fuss.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Mileposter

[Schlitzaf]

I’d like to keep faction tactics, otherwise I agree Miles that be my solution. Sense faction tactics are what make armies flavorful. But limiting Strategem/Relic Access that is fair

[Mileposter]

I can see it going either way, in regards to Faction Bonuses.

 

On the one hand it does give the armies flavor. On the other, they can be gamed to advantage a little easily in soups.

 

One could certainly make the argument that if you wanted the Raven Guard flavor, you'd be playing a Raven Guard army rather than using them as auxiliaries. Then again, are the Raven Guard defined by their Chapter Tactic, or by the jump pack units and scouts you bring?

 

It does impact the example given before, of wanting to bring the three forces seen in the Damocles Campaign onto the same table... But I'm not so sure it hits it negatively enough to remove the feeling a player might be going for with that kind of force?

[Wargamer]

Funny how people used to be able to make flavourful armies back when Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Black Templars Salamanders, Iron Hands, White Scars and Raven Guard all had identical rules, but now they can't do that without Chapter Tactics...

[Schlitzaf]

Sense I started playing that was never the case. In 3rd-4th we had chapter trait system. 5th Character Unlock Tactics. Sixth to Eighth Chapter Tactics. And in general deviant chapters had UU, and Tactical Replacements that defined them. Crusader Squads, Assault Squads as Troops, Grey Hunters etc

[Beta galactosidase]

Third edition did not have chapter traits at all. The only rules were that if you took Sgt Lysander or Chaplain Xavier or the Emperor's Champion as an SC, they could only be in an army for a correct chapter, but that only came up when trying to take a second special character, that was te only rules-relevant time that being a certain chapter meant anything.

 

By that measure it was the best marine codex because chapter traits are vomit.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Beta galactosidase

[Schlitzaf]

You mean the trait system? That most certainly existed in the 3rd Ed Marine Dex. As did the 3rd Ed Gaurd Dex have Doctrines

[Mileposter]

... After sitting and thinking on it, I think I'm going to come to disagree on the Faction Bonuses. They would have the same wording as my suggestion puts on Stratagems and Relics. Most armies have been flavorful and fluffy for the past several editions - and they didn't have Faction Bonuses then. And that's besides the fact that they're bonuses. They're more than fflavor - they are actual numerical advantages. So I'll stand by the suggestion worded as is.