Balancing 40K

[Captain Idaho]

I digress but open play doesn't have to be parallel to Matched Play. You can use the principles of points alongside it to make any changes you want. That's the point of Open Play.

 

Though I agree that Matched Play is the main game.

[Stormxlr]

Maybe make it simple 6cp per 1000 points?

[Dragonlover]

I floated the idea of 1 CP per 250 points of game size over in the soup thread. I figure it gives the best flexibility in terms of game size while not literally drowning everyone in points. I'd also remove all sources of CP regeneration, at the moment they're auto includes and they just limit list diversity.

 

Dragonlover

[Claws and Effect]

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.

Have to disagree there.

 

Having a Vindicare assassin around should not mean my Raven Guard stop acting like Raven Guard. Especially when you consider that the assassin isn't following my Warlord's orders in any way.

 

@Gentlemanloser: Yes, you can use the Auxiliary Detachment for assassins. But each one is a separate detachment.

 

If I want to bring 2 Eversors for some reason it will cost me 2 CP and limit me to a single detachment to form my main force with. Are Eversors so overpowered I need to be punished like that for wanting to use them?

 

That's the problem I have with doing away with allies. Sure it curbs abuse, but it also punishes people who AREN'T abusing it. It's not fair to punish players who want to build a fluffy army just because some jackwagons are gaming the system.

 

If I build a force of Raven Guard, White Scars and Catachan using a Battalion, Outrider, and Vanguard because I want to recreate the forces present in the Damocles campaign....should I really lose all Chapter tactics?

 

That's not gaming the system at all. It's just an attempt to build the army that appeared in a story I like. Unless you think 3 Infantry squads in Chimeras led by Straken, 3 Vanguard squads led by Shrike, and 3 Bike squads led by Khan is somehow game-breakingly overpowered. I mean, it does net me a whopping 8 CP.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[chapter master 454]

Now we are entering the world of eating your cake and having it.

 

"Allies are for fluffy players and shouldn't punish them because they aren't doing anything wrong"

"Allies are breaking the game because players are making use of the system to gain far too much"

 

The choice is to be made: Allies exist or don't at this junction. They rarely if ever occurred in prior editions, only when we started going north of 5th edition did they begin to really attempt to implement them, prior to that i believe it was more house rulings than actual hard rules.

 

Ether all armies get with the program and we ditch the whole concept of using faction keywords bar for index/codex use and be done with it and thus remove it as an issue. That or we accept that no matter what you do with a game, PLAYERS WILL BREAK IT. Players who want to win will find ways to break it and every system there exists will bend to their will, they aren't doing anything wrong and nor was GW when they attempted this system ether, both are right yet we find it annoying because they are finding the optimal directions that don't add up to a "fluffy" army?

Big detail here: we call armies by various names for a reason. Cheesey, fluffy, Dirty. We call them different names because they all belong in a different play area really. If you put a fluffy list against a dirty list, expect the fluff to need some serious washing machine time to pick itself up because fluffy =/= good. Nor should fluffy always mean good. Lets face it, even when a fluffy list is competitive we would complain about how powerful it is.

 

So right now, make your peace with allies system: Ether it stays or goes. If you wish to cater to fluffy players and as many seem to view it "condemn" the matched play base, then keep it. If you want to keep matched play happy, ditch allies. Heck, actually, why not just have allies as an open play only option? Only way I see people being happy at this rate actually.

 

In regards to CP, I believe it should be a reward for building your army in a certain way. Right now, the detachments are too surface level. Far too simple and run of the mill bar the more esoteric ones (like supreme command). However one must make peace with the idea of people breaking things and needing to change it up. No system will be a one hit wonder straight off, there will be some part of the system that won't work because you missed one detail and it breaks EVERYTHING.

 

So here:

Allies are now open play only. No match play allowance of allies. (only possible exception is a unique ally detachment like we had in 7th I believe but that may be another avenue of solution).

Detachments need revision along with each faction receiving unique ones as needed. Possibly there is a central bank of detachments within the rulebook itself however each codex will state which detachments that army is allowed to use and not use. This way you could make a tightly packed detachment give 6CP but have it so guard can't use it.

[Gentlemanloser]

There's no limits to the number of detachment you can take.

 

There are guidelines for organised events. But they're just guidelines. And organised events usually have thier own rules anyway.

 

Edit. Can't break asystem where CPs are divorced from units and detachments.

 

Give everyone a fixed number, base it on points if you wish, and that can't be broken.

 

You still have broken strats. But That's just like broken units. Things to be balanced individually.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Wargamer]

Sorry, but the "it's fluffy!" argument doesn't hold up. It is indeed fluffy - it's a pile of disgusting dirt that needs to be swept up and binned.

 

Need I remind you how many times Loyalist Chapters have come to blows? Need I remind you the Inquisition has orchestrated the annihilation of Astartes Chapters before now? Not to mention innumerable Guard regiments. Need I remind you the entire Imperium is built upon the paranoid belief that betrayal is inevitable?

 

For every story you can point to of a glorious alliance of Inquisitors, Astartes and Mechanicum working as one, I can point to an example of Cadians firing on their own, of Inquisitors denouncing each other as Heretics, or of Dark Angels murdering Imperial troops to hide the truth of the Fallen.

 

Your argument is so cherry-picked that you've discarded enough fruit to feed all of Africa. Allies are broken and no amount of "well I don't abuse it!" will fix that.

[Mileposter]

Many of the more recent posts have come dangerously close to outright saying "The way you play is invalid". Even with GW showing off cases of that being very incorrect.

 

Take care.

[Schlitzaf]

So this is back to the “well I don’t like it so it’s bad”. I bought Admech and expanded my Vostroyans because I could play the models. Even if I liked them, I wouldn’t have bought any beside maybe a single box set for bits.

 

You don’t like, you take issue with it, and you want to force your playstyle onto my games. Everything my allies do, I could just do with my Black Templars. But I want to include the model variety so I have something beside Marine Squad 82 to work on.

 

If your issue with command points make it so mono armies get additional. I use for every instance of universally shared factional keyword, an army gains one more CP. SuperNiche Factions like Deathwing when pure get +4! (If (Imperium Keyword isn’t ignored for these purposes). An army defined by it being a soup, like IG, will only get +2. Astra Militarum and Imperium.

 

A Chaos army if devoted to a single god gets +2. And while some forces (Assassins for example) ultimately disqualify for more than +1. Because only shared word with larger (Imperium) is (Imperium). Armies like T’au could get additional sub-division. Adding T’au and auxiliary, so T’au Empire, T’au, (sept), vs T’au Empire, Auxillary, Kroot, also give Kroot an HQ.

 

That would help mono armies, and armies that are innately soup based, even in Codex will be able to go to two different extremes or differences. But that help ameliorate mono armies, CP issues. Getting an additonal +2/+3 or even +4 depending on how focused they are.

 

I have said this suggestion before, but if the issue is mono forces, most folks add only a single Gaurd Battlelion, which this gives the equivalent of. If this the issue is that allying doesn’t fit your perceived sense of how I should play, then frankly this isn’t a balance discussion. You are annoyed people, don’t follow your rules.

[Tyriks]

Discarding allies is too extreme, though. Some armies exist to be allies. So while currently the free allying (and then being rewarded for it) is too strong in a lot of settings, completely removing it will ruin some factions. Make them cost CP (in matched play) helps reduce the immense benefits while still leaving them as an option. Or limit their usefulness by only allowing generic stratagems unless they share your Warlord's faction. But if they completely throw out allies altogether, the game will be worse for it, and they'll never do it because it will destroy sales of those specialist units.

[Raven1]

I don't think the game will achieve any true balance until you throughout the core set and codexes balance each and every aspect which to me means a game of chess where the only real difference to an army is paint. That would be less fun and chess is cheaper. Whereas now you have shifting metas and things come and go through FAQs and game editions but as a non tournament player it has never really effected me as much as I think it effects tournament players. And if a tournament player wanted true balance they again could just play chess.

[Tyriks]

CP for shared keyword also really only benefits Imperium. Races without sub-factions have fewer keywords because they just don't need them. It would make more sense to do it backwards - start with a certain number and remove some for each divergent keyword. But even that is going to favor some armies. The oft repeated suggestion of a flat amount based on game size has won me over.

[Schlitzaf]

Then is the issue trying to incentive mono armies or disincentive souping. I am firmly against the latter. The one Codex Xenos don’t need to disincentive souping. Hence why they don’t benefit as much. There is no reason to incentive mono over souping. As their is no incentive to soup in the first place

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I floated the idea of 1 CP per 250 points of game size over in the soup thread. I figure it gives the best flexibility in terms of game size while not literally drowning everyone in points. I'd also remove all sources of CP regeneration, at the moment they're auto includes and they just limit list diversity.

 

Dragonlover

 

I like the 250 points per CP. Its simple and should be enough for fractions to take advantage of their unique ones. I don't mind the CP regeneration relics I have more of an issue with most of the other ones, quite frankly they just aren't very good.

 

 

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.

 

The tricky part with that is GW isn't always clear with what they consider support fractions. I started Deathwatch in seventh and they were really frustrating until I accepted that they were meant to be an ally force. Then you factor in the units you listed that add a lot of character to the game and its tough to see easy solutions. 

 

I really think that 40k should have formats. So for example a standard which is basically the base rules and suggestions for matched play. Then you could have a "one Codex" format for the people who want that type of experience. The reason these arguments show up so often is that there is demand for it so why not embrace it.     

[Claws and Effect]

Sorry, but the "it's fluffy!" argument doesn't hold up. It is indeed fluffy - it's a pile of disgusting dirt that needs to be swept up and binned.

 

Need I remind you how many times Loyalist Chapters have come to blows? Need I remind you the Inquisition has orchestrated the annihilation of Astartes Chapters before now? Not to mention innumerable Guard regiments. Need I remind you the entire Imperium is built upon the paranoid belief that betrayal is inevitable?

 

For every story you can point to of a glorious alliance of Inquisitors, Astartes and Mechanicum working as one, I can point to an example of Cadians firing on their own, of Inquisitors denouncing each other as Heretics, or of Dark Angels murdering Imperial troops to hide the truth of the Fallen.

 

Your argument is so cherry-picked that you've discarded enough fruit to feed all of Africa. Allies are broken and no amount of "well I don't abuse it!" will fix that.

Simple fix.

 

Remove any faction that cannot build a complete list without allies from the game entirely.

[crimsondave]

Many of the more recent posts have come dangerously close to outright saying "The way you play is invalid". Even with GW showing off cases of that being very incorrect.

 

Take care.

 

Noticed that too.

[chapter master 454]

Flat CP also just feels flat.

 

So, lets determine then what should actually give CP then if not detachments?

We apparently can't do it with HQs because of abuse.

Can't do it with any unit because abuse.

 

Only solution that allows this is to just flatten the system so badly it just feels half handed.

 

It is to reason that we need to determine what alters CP and I feel it mustn't be based on points. This design method will flatten army building heavily as the point of having CP is to help create incentive to take other units and not spam one (which has failed due to ease of access). Detachments cannot be responsible directly for CP, Agreed. however they must have some reason to exist otherwise we may as well go back to the classic FOC and in my opinion it was so boring..."so, what HQ and troops did you bring as tax?" which is what ALL marine players (and grey knights who seem especially vocal on this) have the biggest issue with.

 

This issue seems to keep cycling back to issues of elite armies NOT BEING ELITE. Is CP really the biggest issue? Is it possible as I have mentioned that we need to fix the fact elite armies pay out the noses for things they don't use. It is something I asked in the Aeldari sub-forum: "What makes Eldar so powerful every edition" and one answer resounds with truth. Eldar units are specialised to the point they suck at anything that isn't their area of fighting, Dark Reapers BLOW at melee (though doesn't matter) because they rock shooting so hard, Banshees struggle to hold a fire fight as much as a conversation but will chop you up finer than ceramic knife in the hands of a skilled chef. This means each unit you pay for, you pay for their aspect, their special area of power. You pay for Howling banshees? You only pay for melee power. Meanwhile, in marine armies we have to pay for the jack of all trades. We pay for melee on our shooting units, shooting on our melee units and overall this means we have to pay more per model for what we want them for.

 

This is a problem that must be addressed as this is about balancing 40k in general, this means points must reflect the units effectiveness. For Tactical marines (the number 1 target of all marine problems), we pay for what? We bring them mainly for their shooting but because they are ok in melee we have to pay EXTRA because a shooting unit with melee should cost a lot but in the scheme of things we are paying for something we aren't using except in dire cases or in most cases just desperate.

 

Eldar pay for what they want to bring. Marines pay for not just what they want, but must lug around their melee/shooting abilities in equal measure and thus cost far more than they are really worth. Even comparing troops, Dire Avengers at 12 points I consider reasonable DESPITE BEING STATS WISE WEAKER THAN MARINES and that is because they bring rules and weapons I actually want, they are frontline objective takers with good frontline weapons and once up close have a potent ability to help thin charging enemies. For 124 points, you can have 11 of their avenger catapults doing work at range. Ok T3 with a 4+sv makes them only elite guard level of durable but at that point we aren't paying for their melee (which sucks so no extra costs, don't care they aren't melee), we aren't paying for "tactical flex" while marines cost 130 base for 10 boltguns, and we have to content with lesser shooting (The avenger catapults may lack range but the assault 2 with shuriken rule means their effective range is near equal to that of boltguns, if not further than). Marines we pay for those bodies that we make use of only a fraction of the stats for (we pay for just not the BS, T, W, Sv and Ld, but also the WS and S). It may seem reasonable to cost them ONLY 10 points above dire avengers but sadly their gun now lacks any real threat and frankly sucks, needs to be within 12" to be effective mass fire (so effective 18" range with movement, not allowed to advance since they are rapid fire). Meanwhile Dire Avengers can have an effective range of anywhere from 18" to 25" and with variance a further 26"-31" depending on the die WITHOUT PENALTY.

 

Points need to be more realistically approached and dealt with. A lot of it is just Mathhammered points rather than extensive tablehammer testing to see if those points make sense.

 

I'm getting a little grumpy...hungry and to be honest...this discussion seems to just boil far too easily...I need a milkshake...

[Wargamer]

Simple fix.

 

Remove any faction that cannot build a complete list without allies from the game entirely.

This would be the starting point. No allies, and throw in the bin anything that can't form a full faction alone.

 

Again, the issue here is balance. If you balance the individual factions, then alliances are potentially overpowered. If you balance for alliances, pure armies will be too weak.

 

Also, not all races can ally equally. How many allies do Orks or Necrons have? Yet Imperium gets SIX Space Marine factions, Legion of the Damned, Guard, Sisters, AdMech, Custodes, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence and Knights. Are you really going to try and argue that an army with that many units to choose from will have the same level of internal balance as the individual factions would if we ban allies?

[Withershadow]

Basing on on points only will swing the imbalance the other way.  Currently Guard can get tons of CPs due to how many cheap HQs and troops they can field, but they also have lots of units for those CPs to be used on.  Giving the exact same amount of CPs to an army with half the units (which is already going first due to that), swings the balance the other way.

 

Maybe just one HQ for Batallions, to make it easier for Marines and Custodes and such to get that CP bonus?

[Skaorn]

Allies won't be going anywhere and I think GW will be expand this on all fronts. Allies provide a chance to tempt even old customers into picking up new factions to vary their games without having to immediately invest in a new army. All you need is to fill out a detachment and you can add something new to an existing army. GW profits whether you decide to expand from there or try a different combo. I think the smaller factions GW has been releasing supports this model.

 

Ultimately I think that stratagems are going to be one of the big headaches of 8th, more so than how many CP you can get with at least. Balance was hard enough when it was just unit and wargear special rules and maybe psychics. Now there are also warlord traits, faction traits, and a bunch of stratagems that are somewhat unique to each codex. Trying to balance all these factors against one another will be impossible especially with allies. Stratagems are a good place for creep to develope, imo, and will highlight synergies that were no considered in designing.

[Wargamer]

No, allies aren't going anywhere, but you can push for mono armies using changes mentioned previously. If you want Chapter Traits and the like then your entire army has to be from one Codex, regardless how many detachments you have.

[Lexington]

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.

Ehhhh...I really dislike this idea, and the way that GW separates out the two "ways to play," as if they're entirely different player and game types with no overlap. You can want to play a "narrative" battle with a balanced system, and the fairly unbalanced nature of PV means you're more or less required to use Matched as a system if you're looking for that mix.

[Captain Idaho]

Of course. I don't believe the 2 are mutually exclusive as I mentioned.

 

But as I also mentioned, the game needs balance and saying we can't have limits on allies because people want to have a theme or whatever means we're holding back improvements.

[Tamiel]

There should be some sort of a reward for people who can fit their whole army into one detachment.
Similarly, people who draw their whole army from one codex should also get some sort of reward.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Tamiel

[Bryan Blaire]

Pretty sure that the concept of Allies existed all the way back in 2nd Edition, it's not like it is new for 40K, it was probably more common sense and wasn't really a set of game rules that I can recall. I know that my DA had a specific allies rule, but I never played Allied games so I can't recall (and am not going to bother looking up) whether there was any specific system in place, it was probably more for multi-player games, not single players.

 

It doesn't seem that Allies themselves are really the issue, more that it exacerbates min-max possibilities due to internal balance issues. That idea is probably as hard to balance as anything.