Balancing 40K

[Commander Dawnstar]

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.

 

How would you give the elite factions like Grey Knights and Custodes parity under this system given their expensive entry-cost HQ and Troops choices?

[Ishagu]

Grey Knights are similar to Marines.

 

This isn't going to create complete parity but it would certainly be far better than what we have now.

Currently Guard and armies with cheaper models have a massive command point advantage. Why should Grey Knights be expected to bring a minimum of 2 HQs and 3 sets of troop to unlock the most basic battalion detachment?

[TheFinisher4Ever]

I really haven't had too many problems with random charges this edition. You can't fail a 3" charge, and with a reroll you are extremely unlikely to fail a >7" charge. It's not nearly the problem it was last edition. Not to mention that Nids and Blood Angels show that close combat can be very good this edition.

[Commander Dawnstar]

Grey Knights are similar to Marines.

 

A baseline one HQ and two Troops Battalion for Grey Knights would be almost twice as expensive as the Space Marine equivalent.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Commander Dawnstar

[Ishagu]

 

 

Grey Knights are similar to Marines.

A baseline one HQ and two Troops Battalion for Grey Knights would be almost twice as expensive as the Space Marine equivalent.

Not if running Primaris. But yes, you have a point.

Custodes face a bigger problem also.

 

Still, if a GK Battalion is only 1 HQ and two troops you could double the command pointd available to a pure GK army.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Ishagu

[Wargamer]

Rather depends what Command Points are meant to reflect. If they're meant to reflect the ability of an army to work as an army then Custodes should not be bringing many at all - they're individuals, not cohesive units. Arguably, Tyranids would be the CP masters of the game, followed by Marines.

[Schlitzaf]

Just to play Devil’s advocate, is this really a massive problem or is this just the philosophical ‘I have issues with allies’. Like someone spends 180 Points to bring 3 CP. (or 2 if we assume Aquila. And enemy needs to spend on average 6 Strategems before it gives positive).

 

Or 600ish to bring 9 CP. The latter is more than a quarter of their entire army. 180 for 3 CP I have no issue with. (The literally cheapest CP, is 52 for 1. Company Commander, BT Cenos, 2 Acolytes. 54 if three Acolytes).

 

Those 30 Gaurdsman will hold backfield and otherwise not do much. A couple Bully Units like Reivars will handle them well enough. In their own armies, hordes need more CP. A Vostroyans Lascannons Team while on par with a Marine Double Heavy Devestator is subjected to variance much worse. While in theory it does the same net wound count for 30 Points less. It has no functional ablative wounds. It starts degrading vs negative modifiers much faster. The above Devi Squad vs -1 Mods hits from 1.5 to 1.16 while the Vostroyans go from 1.5 to 1. That might seem small, the difference is only 0.16. But that is difference of 1 Lascannons every 6 volleys.

 

When you start getting into the range of 12-18 Lascannons. That is every volley, a squad worth of Lascannons Shots. And the CP from stuff like Vostroyan Strategem or generic combined Squad Strategem is meant to close that gap. Sense remember Gaurdsman Aura’s Are tie to orders or choosing one Squad and buffing to Marines 6” Aura buffs.

 

All I am trying to say is it a game problem? Does Having the CP from Gaurd Squads used on Marines have a negative play experience or just the theoretical anger you get from internet discussion?

[Wargamer]

Allies are obviously a problem - you can tell because practically every Space Marine army I see appears to have an Inquisitor and a couple of Culexus Assassins tagging along.

[Schlitzaf]

And why is that a problem? Guess what I am trying to say. Is it negative gameplay experience or a vague feeling of disliking allies

[Tyriks]

600 points for 9 CP is absurd. I can't get 9 CP with my armies at all, so yes that's a problem for me.

[Wargamer]

And why is that a problem? Guess what I am trying to say. Is it negative gameplay experience or a vague feeling of disliking allies

Frankly, it feels like someone trying to cheat the system. When someone says to me "I'm playing Dark Angels" that should mean "my army is from the Dark Angels Codex", not "my Warlord is a Dark Angel, but here's a bunch of stuff from other rulebooks as well."

[justicarius6]

 

 

And why is that a problem? Guess what I am trying to say. Is it negative gameplay experience or a vague feeling of disliking allies

Frankly, it feels like someone trying to cheat the system. When someone says to me "I'm playing Dark Angels" that should mean "my army is from the Dark Angels Codex", not "my Warlord is a Dark Angel, but here's a bunch of stuff from other rulebooks as well."

Or at least a good substantial chunk of the force should be from the one Codex. Not just your 30pt warlord.....

[Lysere]

And why is that a problem? Guess what I am trying to say. Is it negative gameplay experience or a vague feeling of disliking allies

 

Probably repeating myself since I'm basically saying the same thing in two different threads but I have to throw in support when I can.

 

I have to agree with you a bit in that allies aren't really the problem. If you want guard and marines go right ahead, you want some culexus to make up for a lack of anti psyker then more power to you. The problem is you almost always gain more than you give up in doing so.

 

A knight list has serious flaws. Taking a mechanicus allied force can fill in those flaws, unlock a powerful stratagem that the knights wouldn't otherwise have access to yet works with them, and give you more command points. I'm perfectly fine with the first two as that is how allies should work, but there's no reason that you should be getting even more command points on top of it as well. A pure knight list has 6, dropping one knight to squeeze in some mechanicus can get you 9 easily. There needs to be a trade off somewhere without destroying the entire point of allied detachments.

 

With my ideas before and similar ones others have said even guard would benefit greatly from being mono faction. They'd have command points for days and you wouldn't even need the relic or warlord trait to get by, with them you'd probably never run out.

[Rik Lightstar]

What if detachments that don't match the faction of your Warlord only gave half Command Points rounded down?

 

So the ones with no troops would only unlock stratagems and a Battalion is only 1 CP. A Brigade (if you commit to that) is only 4.

 

Rik

[Gentlemanloser]

Well.

 

The cheapest Battalion a GK can field is 2 Brotherhood Champions and three bare 5 man Strike Squads.

 

That costs 545 points for 3CP.

 

And is crap. But it's the cheapest we've got.

 

Or.

 

I could take Bobby G for 385 points and gain 3CP. And regain spent CP on 5+.

 

That's how bad the whole detachment/cp issue is for some armies.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Claws and Effect]

I don't really see the issue with allies, to be honest.

 

Making it so a Space Marine force is incapable of fighting alongside a Guard force or an Inquisitor and a couple assassins, or punishing them for doing so, breaks game immersion. There are TONS of stories where a mixed force has to work together to achieve objectives.

 

Telling us that our armies aren't as good when another force is sharing a battlefield with them simply defies logic.

 

Yes, detachments need some work. But punishing players for allying with other factions isn't the way to do it. Especially when you consider the number of factions that actually can't field an effective army on their own.

 

Assassins are a great example of that. They aren't even capable of forming a single detachment on their own because they have no HQ unit. If you want to include them in a battleforged army they HAVE to have an Inquisitor with them to make up for not having any HQs.

 

I understand that people are abusing it. But really no matter what you do cheeseball players are going to abuse something. If you kill the usefulness of allies they will just find something else. It is almost completely impossible to balance a game like 40k in a way that no one can find a loophole to exploit to their advantage.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Gentlemanloser]

You can use the auxiliary detachment for assassins.

[Tyriks]

I don't really see the issue with allies, to be honest.

Making it so a Space Marine force is incapable of fighting alongside a Guard force or an Inquisitor and a couple assassins, or punishing them for doing so, breaks game immersion. There are TONS of stories where a mixed force has to work together to achieve objectives.

Telling us that our armies aren't as good when another force is sharing a battlefield with them simply defies logic.

Yes, detachments need some work. But punishing players for allying with other factions isn't the way to do it. Especially when you consider the number of factions that actually can't field an effective army on their own.

Assassins are a great example of that. They aren't even capable of forming a single detachment on their own because they have no HQ unit. If you want to include them in a battleforged army they HAVE to have an Inquisitor with them to make up for not having any HQs.

I understand that people are abusing it. But really no matter what you do cheeseball players are going to abuse something. If you kill the usefulness of allies they will just find something else. It is almost completely impossible to balance a game like 40k in a way that no one can find a loophole to exploit to their advantage.

Every story I've read with mixed forces fighting together has had the tension between those forces as a major plot point. They are working to the same ends but they want to do it their own way and have to earn each other's trust. No reason not to represent that with a penalty to CP.

 

With regards to others' ideas of divorcing CPs from detachments, what about just making HQs themselves give CP more? Like as a rule on the profile, each HQ has a CP bonus. More elite HQ units add more, so any army has the same potential for CPs. If needed you could say only the Warlord's detachment adds them.

[Gentlemanloser]

Then you'd get folk spamming the most optimal 5 hqs in a supreme command detachment for CP.

 

Rather than guard battalions or whatever else is being used.

 

Link it to Warlord and it becomes a bonus for the guy that plays the army that can most efficiently abuse a 5 hq supreme command.

 

Any way cp is linked to units, some armies will be able to game it over others.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[utilityzero]

I'm not sure that decoupling Captain Picard from list building helps marines that much, but it would balance the game out somewhat. That just means that soup lists are free to spend those points on something else if they want to.

 

I suppose it could help pure elite armies somewhat. It would be intetesting to see how many guardsmen made it into soup lists after that.

 

I think you should have to choose a primary faction. Your warlord and trinket have to come from them. Then you can have one detachment that doesn't come from that faction. It can have a mix of factions but obviosly if you do that they lose out on traits and stuff.

[Captain Idaho]

The game is balanced on the basis on a single faction and if people want to take a "soup" then they lose the benefits of Chapter Traits etc (which didn't go far enough).

 

Take a look at Custodes; they get a +1 invulnerable save if they're in a pure Custodes Detachment. That's an obvious boost to counter the fact they're super outnumbered on their own.

 

But it doesn't balance if you can take different detachments of different factions. You get the best of both worlds.

 

That needs to change.

[Wargamer]

Agreed. That's the rub right now. Things like Chapter Tactics should require the entire ARMY to be one faction, not just the detachment. You can always house rule exceptions for multiplayer battles.

[Tyriks]

I think allies are too easy right now, but that might take it too far. The factions that only exist to support others should be exempt somehow. I.e. bringing one assassin shouldn't chapter tactics. That's what the assassins exist for. Or Knights, while they can be their own army, should be able to fielded alongside other armies (especially AdMech). So overall I like the idea but some situations wouldn't work.

[Captain Idaho]

Things like Assassins should be special and as an Auxiliary Detachment that doesn't disrupt the cohesion of the army it sits well with me. Same for Inquisitors.

 

Thing is, narrative play exists for players who build themes. Most Matched Play players have a theme within the rules so we should not sacrifice balance for theme when theme can work in open and narrative play.

[Wargamer]

I don't buy this narrative / matched divide. Most people I know play Matched because that's how 40k has always been done, and nobody wants Age of :cussmar style "bring whatever you feel like and maybe it'll be a fair game" mechanics. The only time I played with Power Points it felt like my opponent didn't want to be paying for the upgrades on his Terminator spam.

 

Matched play is the norm for every type of gamer and should be balanced as such.