Balancing 40K

[chapter master 454]

Unit Spam is something we must accept. It exists because running one of the unit is poor choice, especially if you are bringing them for a certain reason. No matter how you cut it, there will always be 'spam' of some kind. People spam Dark Reapers because they are so good, us marine players 'spam' intercessors or 5 man tacticals and so on. Spam happens and I believe most tournament lists you will find they minimise unit diversity because having 1 unit of something makes it vulnerable while if you run 3 squads of it, it is much harder to prevent what they are intended for. So I think at the end we have to possibly accept that it will happen, we can only prevent extreme cases.

 

As for detachments, Maybe a bigger push for completing the full roster or maybe having a point where it is considered "full". Start off by no player having CP to begin with and from there we have each detachment offer a initial CP count. So, a battalion detachment (for example) would offer 2 CP to begin with but when you further fill it out fully (possibly noting certain unit slots as 'secondary') which if filled would then offer a boost to CP, so maybe you get 4 for filling it out. Possibly stipulate that squads need to full to be considered to have filled their slot.

 

I don't know, again rough cut but you know there is one issue we can't seem to get around: Players WILL find the most abusable rules and fully exploit them. It may be that no matter what we do, the only we can fix is stupidly powerful units and not other issues players arrive at. At what point are we stopping Ballistic Skill Tactics and at what point do we stifle people building armies?

[Gentlemanloser]

Again linking CP to detachments only work when every army is equally able to fill all the detachments.

 

Rewarding going deep is no reward when you're army phyically cannot go deep in one.

 

While your opponent goes deep in two, with points to spare.

[Claws and Effect]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of linking CP to HQ units.

 

Maybe 2 CP for being battle forged, with 2 CP for each HQ unit you are required to take. Not including the Supreme Command detachment, that just gives a flat 2.

 

So:

 

Battalion = 4

Brigade = 6

Vanguard, Outrider, Spearhead = 2

Supreme Command = 2

Air Wing = 1 (Since no HQ is required)

[Sheesh Mode]

Balance 40k by creating an equation that is the sum of a series of equations regarding the variables of, model movement, model size, map size, deployment zone, model durability, model lethality, and finally the numeric value of each miniature based upon those previous variables within the larger force/faction. 

[Crimson Ghost IX]

Something that occurs to me is that if players are doing perhaps "strange" things to chase cp...

 

Perhaps the 3 flat base points of cp needs to be actually increased to like 6 or something more to lessen the need perhaps.

Everybody flat gets some extra points to start I mean before they start building.

 

This could be used to fuel restrictions on things also like:

Perhaps falling back from combat needs to be a generally available cp strategem expenditure like a re-roll.

Casting Smite more than once needs to be a cp expenditure strat.

Soulburst etc needs to cost cp perhaps.

Taking allies outside the main force like extra relics needs to be a cp expenditure.

etc etc etc

 

Outside of that discussion:

I think terrain rules needs refined indeed.

I think the current overwatch system needs to be refined as it is alot of dice for little effect generally.

Vehicle Bumper Cars needs to be refined as well as the move and shoot mechanics on vehicles generally.

The fact the game plays slower than before is a real issue in my opinion too.

 

For some of this I feel the cp system could be used to resolve the issue(s) rather be the issue perhaps?

Anyhow make the game fun and fitting the lore wherever possible is primary in my opinion.

[Lexington]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of linking CP to HQ units.

Wouldn't this just have the same problems as the current system, where armies with cheap, spammable HQs overload on Detachments and leave the smaller, more expensive forces in the dust?

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup.

 

GK have no HQs sub 100 points.

 

Numerous armies have HQs around the 40 point mark.

[Shockmaster]

I still think the simplest way is to just limit how CP's can be spent, as others have suggested make them only usable by the detachment that generated them.

[Captain Idaho]

 

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of linking CP to HQ units.

Wouldn't this just have the same problems as the current system, where armies with cheap, spammable HQs overload on Detachments and leave the smaller, more expensive forces in the dust?

This wouldn't be a problem if it was a perk for the horde armies etc. Ad it is they all get additional rules that inflate the value of supposedly weak troops. The Orders system for Astra Millitarum is just crazily powerful and they STILL get stuff like Cadian Doctrine on top.

 

If they got none or very limited of that but got more Command Points then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

So to me that speaks more of fixing those Codex books than rejecting reasonable ideas.

[chapter master 454]

 

 

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of linking CP to HQ units.

Wouldn't this just have the same problems as the current system, where armies with cheap, spammable HQs overload on Detachments and leave the smaller, more expensive forces in the dust?

This wouldn't be a problem if it was a perk for the horde armies etc. Ad it is they all get additional rules that inflate the value of supposedly weak troops. The Orders system for Astra Millitarum is just crazily powerful and they STILL get stuff like Cadian Doctrine on top.

 

If they got none or very limited of that but got more Command Points then it wouldn't be an issue.

 

So to me that speaks more of fixing those Codex books than rejecting reasonable ideas.

 

 

That's a whole warehouse of cans filled with worms. When talking about balance, the entire system needs revamped if that was the case. One issue of balance is that us marines feel weak, Eldar are potent, Guardsman are oh ah scary and so on.

 

The issue eventually evolves into what would be a community effort to create our own version of warhammer 40k, even then it wouldn't have a united feel unless a select few were chosen to create it and even then there would be parts of the community who would dislike that version because of perceived imbalance for certain races. One thing, we as the community, we have for us is that we aren't aiming to push new models or design them because that isn't our domain, we don't feel like new models need introduced and thus we refine what is already there rather than trying to add to it.

Some of us would tone down psychic powers, some of us would amp them up. Some of us would further simplify the shooting phase while others would add old mechanics with revisions.

 

I feel that within this discussion lies many answers to a question that has no answer as every answer can be critiqued as having a fault within it but that always comes from theory and not practice. (and didn't we already have a thread about Mathhammer vs. tablehammer?) 

[Captain Idaho]

Leading back to my original position in the first post, armies like Astra Millitarum are not as powerful if you have decent terrain. Sure they're still powerful, but the curve isn't as severe for Marines to overcome. If there are 50 Guardsmen who have to advance towards an objective around terrain that limits their fire, your Vanguard can counter them with more success than an open desert.

[ERJAK]

Balance 40k by creating an equation that is the sum of a series of equations regarding the variables of, model movement, model size, map size, deployment zone, model durability, model lethality, and finally the numeric value of each miniature based upon those previous variables within the larger force/faction. 

'lol, i dunno' would have been a quicker way to say this.

 

The amount of variables you have here is not even close to everything thing that a unit takes into account when determining quality. And plenty of those variable calculations would be at least somewhat subjective(how valuable is model size? Smaller is better but how much better? A predator is slightly bigger than a rhino, how much of an issue is that? What about oddly shaped units like the exorcist being almost impossible to get out of LoS of?)

 

Then how do you value them in the greater context of a force? How do you account for specialization? What about outliers? A model with extremely high lethality and low durability is often, but not always, wildly superior to a unit that is average at both. The number you got with the variable you made doesn't include any ability to account for 'role' and doing so would be almost impossible simply due to the role of the unit being dependent on your OPPONENTS army.

 

But let's say that number does exist. Let's say you spend the 10000 hours with NASA supercomputers necessary to account for every possible variable in a game like this. Let's say you find that perfect equation where everything is balanced perfectly. You hand the new points over to the player base so excited, only to find this EXACT post on the forums within a week because no matter how much effort you put in people will ALWAYS say the grass is greener on the other side.

 

This is why the 'throw math at it! It'll be perfect!' thing is always a dream. A good dream, but a dream none-the-less.

 

That said, GW could use more math than they do. It doesn't take a genius to look at Dark Reaper and go 'wow they hit hard and are hard to counter. Maybe they should be expensive?'

[ERJAK]

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.

All you'd be doing is nuking the current meta an creating a new, equally broken meta revolving around totally souped armies. You would be in a siutation where you might as well delete Orkz Tau and Necrons from the game, while severely damaging Nids, frustrating most Eldar and Imperial players, and at least moderately irritating Chaos players.

 

This rules would make it worse. The meta would divide into even harsher tiers of even more cookie cutter lists except all sense of faction identity would be lost. You wouldn't even have the CHOICE to bring a substandard list in order to use models you like anymore, not to mention that armies like Custodes, SoB, GSC, etc that have very limited unit choices would never see the table again. You'd take 1 bike captain, 1 banner guy, 1 unit of Seraphim and Celestine in your brand new SUPER SOUP list and that would be the last you ever saw of them. 

 

Highlander is a fun gimmick for specific tournament formats, NOT a fix for army imbalance.

[TheFinisher4Ever]

After reading through the previous pages, I think the following ideas are my favorite so far;

• Give CP bonus for each unused detachment. This doesn't upend the current detachment system completely, but it rewards armies that fill in their one detachment more fully, as opposed to splitting up detachments as much as possible.
• Only the Primary Detachment would give CP. Additional detachments can still be taken, and armies that take Brigades or Battalions would still be rewarded over other specialized detachments.
• Give Monofaction armies bonus CP. This allows allies to be brought still if that's how someone wants to play, but it rewards single faction armies for sticking with their faction.

These 3 ideas combined really help out elite, mono-faction armies while not punishing cheaper, horde armies or ally armies.

 

The problems with that Eldar list all come from 2 places, mixing stratagems and underpriced Dark Reapers. Both of these problems are actually very easy to fix, just limit stratagems to the army that unlocks them (this should have been the case from the start) and increase the cost of Dark Reapers.

[PoA]

Why has CP gain to be part of the listbuilding? To build more fluffy armies? Well the system failed with that.

Why not make it easier?

 

Just give a set amount of CP to all armies:

For every 500 points you get 3 CP. That means at 2k everbody has 12 CP.

And now I don't need to shoehorn my list into the most CP effectiv detachments.

So in short: "The model range of your faction doesn't mater the gamesize does."

 

If things like girlymans +3CP should still exist is another thing personally I don't belive anybody needs more than 12 CP but who knows.

 

Also this doesn't fix the problem with ppl taking "hordes" and "spam" but trying to fix a broken system with another one seems foolish to me.

[Schlitzaf]

Why would allied Detachments ever take anything beside one of the specialized or patrol if allied didn’t grant CP? 1&3 do enough to help mono faction. Through I still stand by my opanion if mono faction gives additional CP. Should be based on degree of shared keywords beyond the first (or have the keywords Aeldari/Chaos/Imperium are ignored for shared Keyword granting +1). So army of pure Deathwing would have +3 (a Battlelion worth), while Astra Militarum Army, that uses auxiliaries (Rattling, Ogryns etc) only plus 1.

 

That rule would really help super specialized/superelite armies while also not benefiting a force of Imperial Gaurd or Ynnari. (Sense Ynnari be only +1, Ynnari being only shared Keyword beyond (Aeldari)). It be annoying for Sisters of Silence and similar “One Unit Sub Armies” (through SoS can unlock +1, because Primaris and them share Adeptus Telepathica). It also means armies allying in codex get +1 (sense (codex) Keyword) while that ‘pure’ gain +2 ((Codex), (SubDivision)). And makes army subfactions such as Skitarii matter. And another neat flavor factor. Chaos Soup that are devoted entirely to (God) will gain +1 CP when similar soups would not.

 

I’d have certain units ignored for this (Inquistors, Fallen and unaligned Units atleast). Also be cool because Tau Auxillaries, especially if we get an HQ, Kroot Armies, +2 or +3 depending if certain keywords or just the first universal one is ignored. The idea hyper pure gives approximately a Battlelion worth of CP, semi-pure gives about a Speciality Detachment worth of CP. Just some food for thought

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

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

 

In all fairness the main point of my post had to do with hit modiifer stacking. They're gonna be -2 to hit between the stratagem and the psychic power in the ynnari list.

 

With an Alaitoc detachment in you can get it too -3 at the cost of offense. A lot of guard units can't hit them at that point. Some of our units (I play Eldar) can get to -4. So nerfing reapers and limiting stratagems to their host detachment doesn't really correct the issue.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah but again that's just Eldar. They have been nefarious factions for other players to "enjoy" playing against for years.

 

It needs fixing but on a Codex level.

[Firepower]

Well mechanically, my main beef is being able to simply stroll out of combat without any real penalty.  It heavily favors horde armies that have a lot of units to shoot your charging unit to death for even attempting to assault.

 

That said, adding a penalty as the codexes stand now wouldn't balance things.  Dexes with brutally strong assault units would get dramatically stronger, defending against horde armies would become even more difficult when they could just tie up an important, expensive unit with a dirt cheap chaff unit, while weaker assault units would have the small gain of being able to drag down larger units through attrition.  I can't think of a way to change the standing rule that would actually make the playing field more level, without having to micromanage every codex after the fact.

 

I'd like to have the old attack generating factors back; 1 attack for charging, 1 for dual weapons.

 

That's about all I got, really.  Not particularly useful as solutions go, but those are the main problems I run into.     

[Wargamer]

We do have attack generators... sort of. Chainswords give +1 attack, pistols can be fired while in combat during your turn, it's just the specialist combat weapons that have less attacks than before.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Yeah but again that's just Eldar. They have been nefarious factions for other players to "enjoy" playing against for years.

 

It needs fixing but on a Codex level.

 

That applies to most everything we're talking about in this thread. For example marines don't have enough CP, they can fix it in codex by making it so you get a CP for each squad of tactical marines.

 

No bonus for a single fraction army, well they can fix at the codex level by adding one. 

 

Right now Eldar are the only army that stack modifiers easily but it doesn't mean that other fractions won't also be able to abuse it. It makes more sense to me to approach something like that from a core rule perspective than some of these other issues because its pretty easy to fix.

[Firepower]

We do have attack generators... sort of. Chainswords give +1 attack, pistols can be fired while in combat during your turn, it's just the specialist combat weapons that have less attacks than before.

 

Pistols firing in melee means the opponent who got charged dishes out more attacks, because he gets to use his before the charger gets to use theirs (rather daft, that).  And for those of us who can spam power weapons, the loss of 1 attack is significant. :(

[Beams]

Melee heavily favors the charger now, and melee is usually a delete button against anything but tanks or hordes. Anything in the middle gets wrecked, usually before they can even attack.

[Captain Idaho]

Admittedly a main rule book addition of "only a single -1 to hit modifier can ever be applied to a unit in a turn" is probably helpful for even Eldar.

 

Means they can take other powers and maybe Alaitoc won't be the only faction we ever see.

[Claws and Effect]

 

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of linking CP to HQ units.

Wouldn't this just have the same problems as the current system, where armies with cheap, spammable HQs overload on Detachments and leave the smaller, more expensive forces in the dust?

I would limit it to just the required HQ units, with no bonuses for taking more than you need.

 

The Supreme Command detachment would grant 2.

 

Most competitive environments I've seen have a max on number of detachments, so there would effectively be a hard cap on how many CP you could acquire.

 

Sure, Guard have a lot of cheap HQs, but if you're limited to 3 detachments you won't gain CP for having more than a max of 9. And that's assuming you're insane enough to run 3 Brigades.