Balancing 40K

[Schlitzaf]

Sisters of Silence aren’t a tactically versatile army. They are niche units meant to fill a role for the Imperium Forces at large. Is the same as units like Assassins. Pure Space Marines would only gain +2 CP from this, (Adeptus Astartes) and (Chapter). Certain chapters, DA for example, could gain +3. By and large? No it wouldn’t benefit Space Marines.

 

Anymore than similar fleshed out armies whose role in flavor is explicitly meant to act as semi-automonous armies. Pure SoS, can reasonably gain +1 CP (Astra Telepathica), and have Astropaths, Wyrdvane and Primaris in addition to their three units + Rhino’s.

 

The more super narrow the more CP you get. A Sisters Army, would if they include Celestine, or Diabolus only get +2 (Astra Mininstorum and Sisters of Battle). If they include AM only units (Crusaders, DeathCults, Flagallents, Priests etc) that is reduced to +1.

 

What this hurts the most, is Tau, Necron and Orks whom only have 1-2 Factional Keyword beyond (Army).

[Captain Idaho]

There are themes that are fine and dandy to take together but the example is quite amusing since they don't have their own Stratagems and Relics to exploit or even Chapter Tactics.

 

And if people want to take a themed narrative army that's fine. Play narrative games or accept your narrative approach won't be as competitive on a basic level in Matched Play as an army that doesn't mix and match. The mix of units IS your competitive edge.

[Slave to Darkness]

But GW said 8th edition is the most balanced version ever!!! Not even 12 months later and the game needs fixing!! What is this madness??? 

Jokes aside, theres some good points made here but I am going to re read everything again then decide if I have anything to add, though is seems most of my gripes have been addressed already. 

[Urriak Urruk]

I read something about how Ynnari have this one list that is currently nearly unbeatable in the hands of a good player.

 

 

IMO you will never have true balance in 40k. People will always try to forge that "perfect list." But GW now seems to have a better formula with FAQs and more updates, to more easily nerf this kind of list domination.

[Vanger]

I think it's important to state, that all restrictions/fixes should apply to Matched play only.

 

From a design perspective the first major flaw I see is that certain parts of the game can easily overload the rest, so much, that it devolves into rock, paper, scissors. Be it flyer-spam, smite-spam, CP-spam, dark reaper-spam, whatever. The problem is when players overload their opponent so much that only hard counters are efective against them.
The second major design flaw is the imballance in faction keywords. Currently the Imperium has the most tools, to mix and match. The problem is not, that IG would be overpowered (they are not), but they are a very easy crutch to rely on. Other factions have a more limited toolbox, even if we consider Forge World options. But that shows another major flaw, that clearly FW team is not that close to the GW devs and follow a different design philosophy.

Now how can this mess be fixed? First GW would need a more coherent design philosophy. It needs to decide if soup is the way to go (this would mean, the expansion of non imperial options) or that each codex should be self sufficeint (imo, the easier way to go). But that would take years, what can we do in the mean time?

 

Restricting Detachments. We should have a Primary Detachment (Battalion, Brigade, Vanguard, Spearhead, Outrider), a Secondary Detachment, which enables you to take a limited number of a secondary force or a certain battlefield role and an Auxiliary Support Detachment (you can take 1 of any battlefield role).
Everyone would get 6 CPs base, 6 for a Brigade primary, 3 for any other primary, and supstracting from that based on what type of secondary detachment they take and -1 for Aux.
Of course this would still favor armies with more tools, but with access to more CPs, it's easier to fix in the yearly Chapter Approved cycle. (yes, aside from point costs, I see Strategems as another balancing tool)

After fixing the army composition and CP issue, the terrain guidelines and rules need an update, and this hread already has some good suggestions.

Third, matched play needs incentive for more ballanced army compositions, which can be achieved with creative mission design, but the tournament community is already doing that.

 

Lastly there are some rule ballance issues, which imo are minor. Dark Reapers? Would their ignroing LOS shots be an issue, when you can't spam them? Will smite spam be adressed with the beta rules? Probably. Charge distances vs Fall Back? Maybe this could be improved with charge distances being 6"+D6". A more reliable charge would offset the fact that next turn the unit shot to pieces. As said, these are relatively minor and GW already promised to fix these type of issues in their errata+FAQ+CA cycle.

[Claws and Effect]

The only way true balance will ever happen is if units are identical across all factions.

 

Meaning all Troops choices are the same, all Elites are the same, all Fast Attack, etc.

 

It should go without saying that we don't want to see that. It would remove most of the strategy in list building.

[Gentlemanloser]

Vanger There are some armies that physically can't fill a brigade detachment.

 

So they would always be disadvantaged versus those that can.

 

Which is really why CP need to be divorced from detachment entirely.

[SaradominWrecksYou]

Two years ago, as my friends and I were still playing 5th in our basements,  I came up with the idea to only allow an army list take 1 of each non-troop/ dedicated transport option. This prevented people from taking multiples of units (you could take multiples if a unit is in a squadron, but only 1 squadron) that may have been too cost effective. For example a space marine player could take 1 dreadnought and 1 ironclad but not take 2 dreadnoughts, as there is only one standard dreadnought entry in the sm book. My friend dubbed these lists, 'Highlander Lists,' the name stuck with me and my buds. We still use this rule in 8th. 

Now this rule may not be quite as effective when using all these ally options that allow people to pick and choose the best preforming units from each book instead of just from 1 book; however, this rule would still go a long way in toning down lists that rely on over-performing units.

[Gentlemanloser]

These types of rules hamstring armies with limited units, and don't really effect those with large unit lists.

[SaradominWrecksYou]

I play 1500 points, pretty hard to run out of options at that point level. Maybe at higher levels this problem would appear. Only one way to find out though...

[Gentlemanloser]

Like Grey Knights only having 1 fast option.

 

So toy limit them to only 1 interceptor squad and no other fast choices.

 

Its great when you play an army that has multiple unit choices for each role.

 

But spare a thought for others who aren't as blessed by GW.

[Lexington]

We've all seen just how many lists are built around cheap Astra Millitarum building Battalions and numbers swelling etc then some powerful cheese?

This is why I prefer the idea of simply making CPs a flat value based on points or some other qualifier. I know people above have noted that this boosts small, elite armies relative to hordes, but given the in-built advantages that hordes get in 8th Ed anyway, I see that as more of a feature than a bug.

[Captain Idaho]

Totally agree. A small, elite and efficient force should have more wider ranging smart options over a horde of unruly thugs.

 

Regarding Grey Knights having limited options... yes well that's their poor Codex. The rest of the game shouldn't suffer on account of allies maxing just because you want some extra options for free. By all means fix Codex Grey Knights but the game shouldn't suffer because of it.

[Kinstryfe]

I do kinda wonder if the opposite approach, opening things up instead of limiting them, would end up balancing things better. I think part of the problem is that Imperium and Chaos are huge. Ynnari are very effective, and decently sized at basically 3 lists. It's the remainder of Orks, T'au, Necrons that are kind of losing out. Maybe make a few units open to everyone. Generic Humans, Blood Axe commandos, Kroot mercs, etc. Once everyone is on a nearer to level playing field, maybe things will start to sort of level out a bit?

[chapter master 454]

Detachments have too much. I mean, a battalion comes with so much it is crazy. Even the more specialized detachments have fairly wide options. Originally the FOC was something of a tax and still is with no real impact on army building as it stands, we are just doing what we all did with the chapter trait system, take what we want and fit it across as many detachments as possible. I would think it more sense to create unique Detachments and have it so you can only take ONE detachment per 2000 points with one exception of an ally detachment which would be heavily limited or possibly taxed in some form.

 

An example would be to create FOCs based on certain army types, like heavy armour, infantry spam if you like, elite forces and so on. Each would have their own quirks attached. For trooper spam, you have plenty of troop slots but your elites, heavy and fast attack are minimal (possibly only 2 of each, maybe even only 1 elite even) with a need for several HQs as if you are going to organise this mass, you need some high ups to keep things running smooth. Heavy Armour would allow you plenty of heavy support but constrict troops and elites with supporting fast attacks (representing outriders). So on with the other kinds. Another aspect would be attaching a unique stratagem to each of these, something that ties it together that makes them awesome to field. Then from there, depending on the points you are playing will grant you a set amount of CP with certain bonuses attached to filling out the correct slots so for example, if you were troop spam list if you had all your HQ slots fill you would receive bonus CP for filling out that slot, for the heavy armour it would be for filling all heavy slots with a unit with the vehicle unit type (possibly maybe you fill 4 out of 6 slots with tanks or something), the Elite Army would benefit from if you spent a percentage of your points on them and not other parts of the army. Each one would reward the player for filling out that role they want to go into.

 

It is rough cut and possibly not the greatest idea but you get the general direction: Make detachment choice matter. By restricting the players to one option, you make it so they have to pick which tactic they are going for and cannot just "Farm" CP for bringing the min needs of it. In my example, players would get 3 base, +2 for each of the FOCs then from there the bonus would be something like 3 or 4 depending on which one (the tank one I would push towards granting more as it is a big investment so they get 4 while the Troop one may only grant say 2).

 

It really comes down to the problem of how they give you the reward at the floor and not the ceiling really. It just encourages bottoming out as many detachments as possible, just like how marine players bottom out tactical squads for the most gain. Why put more into if it doesn't give you anything? Why should I put my heavy supports into the battalion if I can take 3 of them with one more HQ I was likely wanting to take anyway and get more for it. Encourage investment and going the extra mile and committing.

[Gentlemanloser]

Or sisters of silence. Or Custards. Or Knights.

 

Or any other army that didn't have multiple options fit each battlefield role.

 

It's not just the Grey Knights.

 

Edit. And cap this is all in response to 'highlander' type rule changes. Including tournaments that do similair.

 

You might think they balance things.

 

When all they do is make the smaller armies even worse. Armies with many options don't really care that

 

Oh no they can't take 4 dreads. Instead they have to take a normal dread a ven dread an ironclad and a redemptor instead...

Edited February 11, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Vanger]

We have here 2 entirely different problems that need to be solved.

 

1.) Taking multiple detachments to spam any unit..

 

2.) Taking detachments of cheap units to gain access to CPs.

 

These 2 cannot be fixed with the same solution, also I'm strongly against any "solution" that puts armies with limited choices at a disadvantage.

 

First would be solved by a rework how the detachments work, second is by divorcing CPs from detachments or reducing the impact of detachments on the amount of CPs you get.

[Raal]

Hello Brothers,

 

why we don't change the necessary amount of troops in the detachment slots with a min-max point value?  that are necessary

[Wargamer]

The CP / Detachment problem could be solved by points.

 

Want to field a Batallion for +3 CP? You need at least 100 points of HQ and 500 points of Troops. Want to field a Brigade? You need at least 1,000 points of Troops and the total value of the Brigade must be at least 2,000 points. For sanity's sake, we can add a rule for Dedicated Transports saying they are "attached" to a parent unit. So, for example, when you buy a Guard Infantry squad you can buy a Chimera for that unit and both will count towards your Troops requirement. There'll probably have to be a rule about the Troops unit either starting inside their Transport or both have to deploy within 3" or 6" of each other, but right now this is at the spitballing stage and not properly hashed out.

 

Obviously, some armies will find this easier to deal with than others. But it does alleviate some of the other issues and stops rewarding people bringing the bare minimum to fill the troop slots.

[Mileposter]

Can't require points on detachment if detachments are used in both point and power level games. Would need a solution that works for both, or at minimum, doesn't disrupt or completely depart the organization of the two.

[Gentlemanloser]

Who really cares about balance when talking about power levels.

 

PL is inherently unbalanced. You can't claim otherwise.

 

Not when i can take a 13 point upgrade on every single mini in every single unit i use. For free.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

The Ynnari list that was posted above isn't broke because of CPs, or relics its broke because of stackable -1 to hit (which hasn't been brought up yet), and dark reapers which are super efficient unit that gains access to both Ynnari and craftworld abilities and stratagems. The list was also updated because you have to take a Ynnari character as your warlord. There also was a lot of slow play at that event which is a whole other can of worms.

 

So my contribution is that I really think that bonuses to hit or penalties shouldn't stack. Just take the best bonus vs. the harshest penalty.

 

I think having a table that restricts CP for certain detachments until a certain point threshold is a good ideal even suggested it in another thread. 

 

I also think that there should be a bonus if all entries for an army are taken from the same codex.  Or barring that maybe a single codex format for people that want that experience.

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

Well we all know that Dark Reapers need a nerf beating. Let's remember that's a separate issue.

[Bryan Blaire]

Can't require points on detachment if detachments are used in both point and power level games. Would need a solution that works for both, or at minimum, doesn't disrupt or completely depart the organization of the two.

Go back to the % value concept of 2nd Edition then - you can't have more 20% of point size/PL for X portion, no less than 30%, but no more than 50% for this portion, etc.

 

(Really don't understand why the board is messing up the Quote function so bad for this post)

[Wargamer]

Can't require points on detachment if detachments are used in both point and power level games. Would need a solution that works for both, or at minimum, doesn't disrupt or completely depart the organization of the two.

Yes you can. You just use the two terms interchangeably. Your battalion needs 500 points OR 6PP, whichever you are using.