Balancing 40K

[Lord_Caerolion]

But you only get access to the Stratagems if you include any dedicated Detachments of that Faction only. Maybe change it to only if the Warlord is from that Detachment? That way your Imperial Detachment and included Warlord doesn't get access to any Codex-specific Detachments?

[robber]

what if the 3 CP from playing match play go into general CP pool while every detachments CP can only be spent on that detachment. kinda forces you to fill out more of the detachments than doing the min to get CP.

[Tyriks]

what if the 3 CP from playing match play go into general CP pool while every detachments CP can only be spent on that detachment. kinda forces you to fill out more of the detachments than doing the min to get CP.

Once again, that would lead to having to keep track of six different CP pools. That's going to be a major headache. Not to mention that several people I play with like to bring copies of the same detachment, so keeping track of which identical squad is from which detachment is just not worth it.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Well, they did a similar thing with Power Dice for Wizards in the old Warhammer Fantasy. It's not out of the question for them to do something like that.

[Gentlemanloser]

So you could have 1615 points of something not space marine, take Bobby G as your Warlord and can only use Marine Strats?

 

Relics would also need to be rebalanced as they are designed with the extra armory strat in mind, allowing you to take relics not from your warlords faction.

[Rik Lightstar]

I'd like to see a return of something like the old Strategy Rating and only give it to armies where all units share the right Faction Keywords.

 

For example Grey Knight Characters could have a rating of 4 meaning if the army is PURE Grey Knights they'd receive an additional 4 Command Points.

 

This could be added in so exception characters that already generate CPs like Guilliman and Azreal would add their X for their own rules plus 3 (for example) for being a Marine Commander if the army was entirely Marines from the same book.

 

I'd keep it book restricted not necessarily *Regiment* or *Codex Chapter*.

 

Rik

[Captain Idaho]

Only problem is the detachment rules. Part of the reason the Battalion and Brigade grants the most points is because they encourage more diverse combined lists approachs. Take that away and you have nothing but Spear Heads and Vanguard Detachments.

 

***

 

Seems everyone agrees with my point about terrain which is good since it shows community consensus.

 

I remember reading someone mentioned wanting more consistent charges and I too agree with that. Movement plus a D6 sounds good but it seriously hurts slower models. Terminators, especially Cataphractii, would rarely get a charge off!

 

Any ideas on fixes for that?

[Gentlemanloser]

2d6 charge min result equal to units movement stat?

[MrZakalwe]

But why would you split it to detachment when you could do it to keyword? In a mixed Space Marine Imperial Guard list you'd end up with three pools IF the marine and guard detachments are both generating CP.

 

General (the starting 3 can be used for anything).

 

Guard (can be used for astra militarum stratagems).

 

Marine (can be used for space marine strategems).

 

That's much easier book keeping than keeping track of wounds etc and is pretty easily handled with counters/tokens.

[Captain Idaho]

Or just no book keeping and limit Strategums to the primary faction.

 

***

Regarding charge distance... perhaps same as now but with a minimum score of the movement value of the model for infantry models without the Fly keyword.

 

Sure it makes faster moving models at an advantage, but we do need to encourage assaults over gunlines for game balance.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Captain Idaho

[Wargamer]

D6+6" works best in my opinion.

[Ishagu]

I think that each army should have individual criteria for Detachments.

 

For marines a Battallion should be 1 HQ and 2 Troops.

For Guard it should be 2 HQ, 3 Troops

 

Just an example. Apply this to other detachments as well. A Marine Vanguard should be 1 HQ and 2 Elite. This way armies will be able to generate the same volumes of command points per point investment.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Ishagu

[justicarius6]

So you could have 1615 points of something not space marine, take Bobby G as your Warlord and can only use Marine Strats?

 

Relics would also need to be rebalanced as they are designed with the extra armory strat in mind, allowing you to take relics not from your warlords faction.

Exactly that. It's your choice how to build your list remember, so if you want to hamstring yourself by souping up then you take the consequences.

 

I actually don't think relics would need to be re-balanced either as I don't think they were designed for taking relics from different armies at all it's simply an unintended consequence of the stratagem/relic wording.

 

I don't think charge distance needs re-working personally. For a lot of armies it's already all too easy to get off first turn charges, if you add in charge distance being D6+6" then they would be brutally easy for almost every force out there. I'm a fan of melee combat, but not so much that I want to see the game devolve into nothing but who can build the most brutal hand-to-hand combatants.

Edited February 15, 2018 by justicarius6

[Gentlemanloser]

Its not unintended. Its clarified in the chaos/death guard faq this is the way it's intended to work.

[Tyriks]

I think giving some units (like jump packs) got a rule like 6"+d6 would make sense. But 2d6" also makes sense for a lot of units. Honestly, some things (like Kataphrons) would make sense with even less (3d3 maybe?). I would rather have charge distance be a stat that can change unit to unit than be a flat value.

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

[Wargamer]

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

Then you stop charging from Deep Strike altogether.

[justicarius6]

Its not unintended. Its clarified in the chaos/death guard faq this is the way it's intended to work.

No, that's just confirming the rules as written. I think they look at a lot of these rules that are brought up and think "crap, they've found shenanigans" but don't want to make wholesale wording changes to rules in multiple codices so let it slide.

 

Either way, you're not telling me you believe that the game was designed and balanced around taking multiple relics from different sources in soup armies. Restricting relics and stratagems to the warlord faction choice is clearly the easiest and most sensible solution to a lot of the problems with list-building right now.

Edited February 15, 2018 by justicarius6

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

Then you stop charging from Deep Strike altogether.

Units should be able to charge from deep strike, it’s what they’re for. It was ridiculous in 7th when an elite unit would supposedly surprise a force by deep striking only to have to sit there for a turn.

 

But what’s happened in 8th is we’ve removed any risk from deep striking other than a possible charge fail. I believe deep striking does need some more risk but I’d rather not remove the flavour of suddenly appearing and charging the enemy for the sake of giving some units better charge ranges.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

They're not fine. It's too random. Why are charges totally random yet a basic move isn't? Why is charging random to reach assault yet ranged weapons don't have random range?

 

The game is stacked towards shooting especially in a competetive scene.

 

If infantry without fly only got 2D6" charge and a minimum of the unit's movement value, then 9" charges aren't affected yet there is more consistency for chargers so they can make use of their expensive upgrades.

 

The game needs assault forces to be able to reach the opponent to make it worthwhile and balance the game.

[Wargamer]

 

 

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

Then you stop charging from Deep Strike altogether.

Units should be able to charge from deep strike, it’s what they’re for. It was ridiculous in 7th when an elite unit would supposedly surprise a force by deep striking only to have to sit there for a turn.

 

But what’s happened in 8th is we’ve removed any risk from deep striking other than a possible charge fail. I believe deep striking does need some more risk but I’d rather not remove the flavour of suddenly appearing and charging the enemy for the sake of giving some units better charge ranges.

 

Except what you're pushing for is encouraging alpha strikes. It essentially means that assault units should be able to hide away from enemy fire and get a free assault on the enemy. This is wrong. The enemy should have the chance to gun down your combat units before they charge.

[justicarius6]

Perhaps a charge from Deep Strike still uses 2d6 but a normal charge is 1d6+movement (to a maximum of 1d6+6)?

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

Then you stop charging from Deep Strike altogether.

Units should be able to charge from deep strike, it’s what they’re for. It was ridiculous in 7th when an elite unit would supposedly surprise a force by deep striking only to have to sit there for a turn.

 

But what’s happened in 8th is we’ve removed any risk from deep striking other than a possible charge fail. I believe deep striking does need some more risk but I’d rather not remove the flavour of suddenly appearing and charging the enemy for the sake of giving some units better charge ranges.

Except what you're pushing for is encouraging alpha strikes. It essentially means that assault units should be able to hide away from enemy fire and get a free assault on the enemy. This is wrong. The enemy should have the chance to gun down your combat units before they charge.

Oh no, I don’t think I’m doing a great job of explaining it, I absolutely agree, there should be a chance to shoot at units but that chance comes from the fact that they’re likely to fail that initial 9 inch charge, the odds are against it. But if you prevented them from charging altogether, that’s what I don’t support. If you deep strike, you should face a risk, the risk of being shot to pieces, but that risk should be because you’re unlikely to make the charge, not because you’re flat out prevented from even trying. I’m even in favour of introducing more risks to deep strike, similar to how Valkyrie passengers can disembark mid flight but have to roll and if they get a 1 they suffer an accident and die. For me though, preventing a unit from charging out of deep strike is so counter intuitive to what that manoeuvre is for that it spoils it. Edited February 15, 2018 by MARK0SIAN

[Ishagu]

All this deepstrike talk. It's not the problem with 40k at the moment.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

Yeah, D6+6” charge would mean a deep striking force had 66% chance of successfully charging when it arrives. Deep striking is already a no-brainer, it has no drawbacks and certainly doesn’t need any more of a bonus. Charging distances are fine now.

They're not fine. It's too random. Why are charges totally random yet a basic move isn't? Why is charging random to reach assault yet ranged weapons don't have random range?

 

The game is stacked towards shooting especially in a competetive scene.

 

If infantry without fly only got 2D6" charge and a minimum of the unit's movement value, then 9" charges aren't affected yet there is more consistency for chargers so they can make use of their expensive upgrades.

 

The game needs assault forces to be able to reach the opponent to make it worthwhile and balance the game.

I didn’t object to 2D6 with a minimum of the move value (although given the huge move distances of some models that would still be a lot). I objected to D6 +6” which is not the same.

 

Also loads of stuff around charging makes no sense :) why do Guard conscripts, space marines, kabalite warriors and Custodes all suddenly devolve to the exact same ballistic skill during overwatch? Why does the flamer not work if they charge from further than 8” away, holding down a trigger for a wall of flame that they will have to run into at some point to close makes much more sense. Why can some forces advance and charge but others can’t? It’s to balance it. In this edition units can be in cc far faster than previously, many of them in their first turn. Random charge ranges are the only thing holding some of these forces back.