Balancing 40K

[Gentlemanloser]

Daemonhunters had Marine and Guard allies all the way back to thier 3rd edition Codex. Edited February 18, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[chapter master 454]

Allies are problematic as it does require something else to be considered: Synergy with other codexes. Faction keywords have helped a little but think about it: try balancing a codex then from there make sure the balance of that codex doesn't throw another codexes balance out of wack because of a unit combo or rule interaction or some other such event.

[Gentlemanloser]

Like deldar WWP deep striking Eldar wraithbros with d flamers.

[Torvak Kyre]

What’s wrong with a system similar to the early 6th Edition format with some tweaks?

 

Per 1000(?) points

Primary detachment - choice from battalion, spearhead etc. - all units must be from same codex.

Allied detachment - must be from same faction as primary.

 

Everyone starts with a set number of command points. Fancier primary detachments cost command points to field.

Entire army must be from the same faction.

 

This way allies are still available, spamming detachments is impossible and horde armies will not gain a rediculous amount of CP.

[Schlitzaf]

Why is hordes having silly amount of CP. Hordes have so much CP, because as a general rule their average strategems are less impactful than other armies. Gaurdsman have very few actually usable stratagems, a lot of them are just stuff like Vox Cover, the take cover one (Which while more impactful statistically is mechanically less useful), etc. Gaurdsman don't really have too many useful strategems, and the ones that are, are locked behind (regiment) or deployment strategems (like most of the best one for armies and codexes). 

[Wargamer]

I'd say giving a Mordian Leman Russ Punisher +1 to hit on Overwatch is a bloody amazing use of a CP, especially against fellow hordes and/or combat armies. Charge the thing to get it off an objective and you give them a free round of shooting!

[Gentlemanloser]

Because you don't use the CP in lack lustre strats.

 

You use them for your main army and abuse a Tempestor prime for two 5+ regain spent CP rolls.

[Claws and Effect]

Allies are problematic as it does require something else to be considered: Synergy with other codexes. Faction keywords have helped a little but think about it: try balancing a codex then from there make sure the balance of that codex doesn't throw another codexes balance out of wack because of a unit combo or rule interaction or some other such event.

 

Yes, allies can be problematic. Especially when it opens things up for abuse. 

 

But simply disallowing them altogether isn't the answer. Because of the aforementioned inability of a number of factions to actually put together a complete army without allies. Assassins have to be allied with something to even be on the table, because they consist of nothing but Elites choices. Using the Auxiliary detachment isn't a very good solution because then you have to pay CP for each individual one. That's a problem for Space Marines and Grey Knights who probably don't have many CP to begin with.

 

I'd be okay with giving bonus CP for an entire army being drawn from the same Codex. Base it on how specific the shared keywords get. Space Marines have <IMPERIUM>, <ADEPTUS ASTARTES>, and <CHAPTER>. No bonus CP for <IMPERIUM>, small bonus for <ADEPTUS ASTARTES>, larger bonus for <CHAPTER>. That way taking a small detachment of Guard along with your Marines doesn't penalize you, but it kills the bonus you'd get for being pure Raven Guard (for example). I'd be able to take a detachment of an Inquisitor, his Acolytes, and a couple assassins without losing anything. But I wouldn't gain anything like I would for being pure Raven Guard. 

 

And have it work the same for other factions. Larger bonuses for Regiment, Craftword, Clan, Sept, Kabal, Hive Fleet, etc. Individually tailor the bonuses so the factions that can already get a ton of CP aren't adding a ton more. Grey Knights and Custodes would get the biggest bonus for staying pure, while Nids, Orks, and Guard would get the smallest. With the other factions somewhere on the spectrum in between.  

 

I'm honestly more annoyed that units that used to have special rules baked into their profile had them turned into Strategems instead. Like Linebreaker. It used to simply require you to have 3 Vindicators on the table within a certain distance of each other. Now it still ​requires 3 Vindicators within a certain distance, and you have to pay CP on top of it. Same goes for Killshot. 

[Tyriks]

 

Allies are problematic as it does require something else to be considered: Synergy with other codexes. Faction keywords have helped a little but think about it: try balancing a codex then from there make sure the balance of that codex doesn't throw another codexes balance out of wack because of a unit combo or rule interaction or some other such event.

 

 

Yes, allies can be problematic. Especially when it opens things up for abuse. 

 

But simply disallowing them altogether isn't the answer. Because of the aforementioned inability of a number of factions to actually put together a complete army without allies. Assassins have to be allied with something to even be on the table, because they consist of nothing but Elites choices. Using the Auxiliary detachment isn't a very good solution because then you have to pay CP for each individual one. That's a problem for Space Marines and Grey Knights who probably don't have many CP to begin with.

 

I'd be okay with giving bonus CP for an entire army being drawn from the same Codex. Base it on how specific the shared keywords get. Space Marines have <IMPERIUM>, <ADEPTUS ASTARTES>, and <CHAPTER>. No bonus CP for <IMPERIUM>, small bonus for <ADEPTUS ASTARTES>, larger bonus for <CHAPTER>. That way taking a small detachment of Guard along with your Marines doesn't penalize you, but it kills the bonus you'd get for being pure Raven Guard (for example). I'd be able to take a detachment of an Inquisitor, his Acolytes, and a couple assassins without losing anything. But I wouldn't gain anything like I would for being pure Raven Guard. 

 

And have it work the same for other factions. Larger bonuses for Regiment, Craftword, Clan, Sept, Kabal, Hive Fleet, etc. Individually tailor the bonuses so the factions that can already get a ton of CP aren't adding a ton more. Grey Knights and Custodes would get the biggest bonus for staying pure, while Nids, Orks, and Guard would get the smallest. With the other factions somewhere on the spectrum in between.  

 

I'm honestly more annoyed that units that used to have special rules baked into their profile had them turned into Strategems instead. Like Linebreaker. It used to simply require you to have 3 Vindicators on the table within a certain distance of each other. Now it still ​requires 3 Vindicators within a certain distance, and you have to pay CP on top of it. Same goes for Killshot.

Didn't both of those require all three to be in one unit? This is way more flexible now.

[chapter master 454]

 

Didn't both of those require all three to be in one unit? This is way more flexible now.

 

 

Not really, the squad requirement isn't even an issue really. The main issue is it is a stratagem eating up CP that is fairly valuable to elite armies like marines. Maybe to guard armies who have CP to spare, with marines it isn't the case. The other main point he does note is those stratagems used to be free with the only cost being taking 1. Now it is less flexible as you can't put 3 into one slot ether, you have to have 3 HS slots just for that stratagem as well. It is just layers upon layers of complications.

[Tyriks]

 

Didn't both of those require all three to be in one unit? This is way more flexible now.

 

Not really, the squad requirement isn't even an issue really. The main issue is it is a stratagem eating up CP that is fairly valuable to elite armies like marines. Maybe to guard armies who have CP to spare, with marines it isn't the case. The other main point he does note is those stratagems used to be free with the only cost being taking 1. Now it is less flexible as you can't put 3 into one slot ether, you have to have 3 HS slots just for that stratagem as well. It is just layers upon layers of complications.

No, they weren't free because as I said it required you to bring three together in a single unit. If you had three random vindicators you couldn't do it at all before. Edited February 20, 2018 by Tyriks

[Captain Idaho]

Space Marines have the weakest Stratagems which is a problem in itself.

 

Even comparing like for like the Space Marines Codex comes out poor. As an example, Space Marines get Hellfire Shells which only works on Heavy Bolters for 1CP, which isn't totally unfair as it's an okay Stratagem for D3 Mortal Wounds.

 

However, Chaos get the same Strategum that can be used on ANY bolt weapon in any unit. It means a bolt pistol in close combat can use it!

 

How's that fair?

 

Not to mention how underused the Vindicator is simply because there are better options, yet for a Strategum in the Codex people have to take 3 poor choices and the Stratagem is ruined if 1 dies.

 

But that is a totally different topic territory so maybe we should make one?

[Adeptus]

I'm really late to the party here and I haven't read through the nine pages of discussion so I'm sorry if this idea has been brought up:

 

Command points. These are free. Models which make it easier to get command points (such as Astra Militarum infantry squads) do not have a points hike to reflect this. A models points cover only it's utility on the tabletop and not any other benefits it might give when building a list. As such, Command Points should be: Calculate the Command Points of each player in the game. Each player recieves a number of Command Points equal to the highest number. For example: If John has 12 Command Points and Steve has 7, then Steve will recieve 5 Command Points so that both players have 12.

 

This removes incentive to 'game' your lists, and allows you to take detachments for theme rather than power.

[Redtoof]

Space Marines have the weakest Stratagems which is a problem in itself.

Even comparing like for like the Space Marines Codex comes out poor. As an example, Space Marines get Hellfire Shells which only works on Heavy Bolters for 1CP, which isn't totally unfair as it's an okay Stratagem for D3 Mortal Wounds.

However, Chaos get the same Strategum that can be used on ANY bolt weapon in any unit. It means a bolt pistol in close combat can use it!

How's that fair?

Not to mention how underused the Vindicator is simply because there are better options, yet for a Strategum in the Codex people have to take 3 poor choices and the Stratagem is ruined if 1 dies.

But that is a totally different topic territory so maybe we should make one?

I get the point, but the Chaos version, Daemon Shell, can only be used by a character with a bolt weapon, and if you roll miss (which cannot be rerolled), they die. This particular example probably favours the Imperials.

 

 

On the topic at hand - 40k will never truly be balanced, but I think this is the most balanced it has been in many years, if not ever. A few points adjustments here and there (which we can expect anyway) will make a big difference. Allies and command points are an issue in the nebulous zone around 'standard' matched play vs tournament play, one that will probably not have a perfect solution. Personally if I were in charge of a tournament, going forward I'd make the points limit 1500 and limit to 2 detachments, I think that would curb a fair amount of abuse.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Redtoof

[NatBrannigan]

You're right, 40k will never be balanced because it's far to complex. Simply not going to happen. I think some abilities are really poorly thought out by GW (-1 to hit, Dark Reapers bla bla bla) and that's a shame.

 

GW make a fun game for people to play for fun. They probably look at emails regarding balance and think something along the lines of "But why would you take THAT combination of units!?" or "why not just let the weaker army take some more points?"

 

The game works well as a fun, well, game. It's really not set up for ultra competitive events so balancing it to cater for that will eventually make all armies have the same rules. Boo!

 

Now the bigger problems can be fairly easily fixed I think, and that will help. Tone down some of the crazier units and abilities to start with. Then look at the CP issues, mainly regarding allies. there are some cracking ideas above.

 

But for the love of the Emperor, don't keep nerfing Guardsmen because they're being abused in Space Marine lists! Punish Space Marine players who use Guardsman as CP batteries instead! Some of us like playing Imperial Guard on their own! Pure Marine players (so, about %75 of all players!) may have to wait for a new codex though. It's an issue Guard have had for many an edition. We get the first codex that comes out and it's great, until the next codex comes out and is more powerful. Then the next comes out and it's even more powerful. Always been an issue and probably always will be.

[Chaplain Killmer]

I would keep the CP Generation just exactly as it is in the book, but as it is reflecting the command structure of your army - it's loosing ist efficiency with Units you have outside of your trained fighting body - as especially marines are portrait. I would then just divide the full number of generated CP by the different army key words - so you still might get some reward by cleverly combine units but not as extreme as before.

[Gentlemanloser]

What happens if you use Imperium Detachments?

[Chaplain Killmer]

Then rephrase it to codex faction keyword.

[Chaplain Killmer]

The point is - I wouldn't like to punish players who really like they collection and are keen on displaying some unique army. Just blunt optimizing to win should not be encouraged.

[Captain Idaho]

Where do you draw the line though? Can Orks team up with Imperials on a routine basis? What about Eldar as they actually have fought side by side?

 

For that matter, surely Chaos can team up with anyone who will have them since Chaos?

 

There has to be a line and it may as well be in the most balancing manner possible.

 

If you want your unique and themed collection then play with it. Ask your opponent what they think about taking on your take on an Imperial Crusade etc. Use Matched Play rules with agreement or other Open War/Narrative ways of play. Have a great time.

 

Don't just rock up to a store and expect me to be happy to take on your Tempestus Scions, Custodes and Leman Russ tanks without notice. Which is what Matched Play is for.

[Tyriks]

That's just way too extreme a solution, though. If that was the standard, I might as well throw my Knights away. Anyone with Sisters of Silence or Assassins can do the same, because they'll never get used again.

[Wargamer]

Well that's simply not true. After all, I fielded Stormtrooper armies long before the rules allowed such things. Do you know how? I said to my friends "hey, I've house-ruled a Stormtrooper army! Do you want to take it on?" and they said yes.

 

But if you are just going to take on a stranger, you should not be bringing allies - you should be restricted to one Codex.

 

Alternatively, you can be free to bring your soup armies... but you don't get Regimental Doctrines, Chapter Tactics, etc. and you only get the base 3 Command Points. You sacrifice all those other perks for the ability to mix codices. That's fair. Don't like it? Don't mix codices!

Edited February 20, 2018 by Wargamer

[Mileposter]

I would be okay with that, if there were fair tradeoff. If Sisters of Silence were powerful enough to trade all Codex bonuses for. Or if an Inquisitor was strong enough to merit giving up CP for.

 

Also, I assume you'd make specific exceptions for Genestealer Cults? And Ynnari?

[The Unseen]

Matched play should be most restricted faction keyword possible, with the exception of the auxiliary detatchment.

So you can still bring an inquisitor, or an assassin, etc into matched play, but it'll cost you a CP for each.

 

Ynarri and Genestealer Cults are obvious exceptions.

Ynnari changes their keywords I thought though, and idk how cults work in 8th.

 

Matched play is and should be focussed on the most balanced version of 40k possible, allies beyond the most restricted options make that impossible, there are way to many moving parts with the Imperium keyword alone, much less chaos or ynnari.

 

If you want to play fluffy lists with allies, why are you playing matched when you could be playing open/narrative, aka the game formats explicitly stated to be for people wanting to do that.

[Wargamer]

I would be okay with that, if there were fair tradeoff. If Sisters of Silence were powerful enough to trade all Codex bonuses for. Or if an Inquisitor was strong enough to merit giving up CP for.

 

Also, I assume you'd make specific exceptions for Genestealer Cults? And Ynnari?

If you mean an exception in that you can ally them without penalty, no. You ally these forces, you lose any and all perks of all armies involved.

 

If you mean allow these armies to bring stuff from another Codex because their armies technically share them (ie: Ynnari are an alliance of all Eldar, not a distinct Eldar faction) then yes, that's fine... so long as the stuff brought over loses any faction-based bonuses of the old faction. In other words, you can't have Ynnari who are also Ataloic - it's either a Ynnari army OR an Ataloic army.