WARCOM: basic 40k SURVEY! - discussion

[jarms48]

Oh man, I wrote an essay for them. 

 

 

 

- Bring back Universal Special Rules into the main rulebook. We don't need deep strike or FNP by a dozen different names (unless they're actually unique). Put the ability in the main rule book again so players can know what it is, then also leave it on the specific datasheets for units that have it. That way a player can say "I have a 5+ FNP" and the other player should immediately understand what they're talking about. Instead of "I have Fanatical Devotion or Augmented Mount."

 

-  Change some of the amount of slots in detachments. Patrols, Vanguards, Spearheads, and Outriders should only have 0 - 1 Flyer slots, down from 0 - 2. Brigades should get a 0 - 1 Lord of War and 0 - 1 Fortification slots in addition to what they already have.

 

- Fortification rules need to be tweaked. You should be allowed to swap terrain pieces in your deployment zone for any fortifications you brought. 

 

- Blast was a novel addition but now it barely does anything. It needs to work on each D3 or D6, that way it actually does something on 3D3 or 3D6 weapons. I'd probably slightly nerf D3 weapons to minimum 2 shots per D3 for units with 6 - 10 models. This makes them more reliable. 

 

- Linking to the above, but I wanted to make it a separate dot point cause this will be controversial. If you want to address MSU you could change minimum blast to 5 - 10 models. 

 

- Obscuring and dense cover rules need to be tweaked. GW need to change it from 18 wounds or more models to models from the Flyer and Lord of War Battlefield Roles. 

 

I also stressed the importance of quarterly balance updates, and not charging for point adjustments. 

 

I also suggested that simply reprinting rules content with very minor wording adjustments when that faction isn't working needs to be addressed. Look at the new Inquisition rules. It does nothing to actually make anything other than a single Inquisitor playable. At the very minimum GW should have added a rule that allowed an allied Inquisition Vanguard detachment be taken for 0 CP and without breaking army rules. Then we might actually see some other Inquisition units be fielded. 

 

Another addition which would have been thematic for the Inquisition would have been some kind of return of Chamber Militants. For example, if you take an Inquisitor as an Agent of the Imperium in an Militarum Tempestus detachment then you could have a generic 1 CP stratagem that gives them all the <Ordo> keyword, but they do not benefit from the Quarry ability. Then they could do similar things for the specific Ordos, Ordo Malleus would have a unique Chamber Militant ability for Grey Knights, Ordo Xeno for Deathwatch, and Ordo Hereticus for Adepta Sororitas. These unique ones should probably cost 2 or 3 CP as their codexes and datasheets are much more powerful. 

 

Adding on from the above, similar rules should have been done with Rogue Traders. You should be able to take a named Rogue Trader character as an Agent of the Imperium, or take a Rogue Trader Vanguard detachment for 0 CP without breaking army rules. The Inquisition and Rogue Traders are fun, lore friendly armies, not competitive in the slightest. 

 

There was more too.

Edited November 5, 2021 by jarms48

[chapter master 454]

And now to see the results where they announce more primaris marines!...woo...

 

Gave honest opinion and decided to let loose a shot at saying about E-Pubs, likely lasguns at a titan but hey ho. Mainly pointed to stratagems needing looked at, no point having pages of them if only half a page worth isn't trash or so situational they are worthless.

 

The last thing I pointed at was how detachments just don't feel like an army building challenge. By all accounts, I didn't say because I only realise now but really the way they lay out how army building works, everyone actually builds their army backwards according to the rules: We pick detachments we are going to fill and then fill them which is far more intuitive. However the rules state you build a list of units then assign them into detachments afterwards...which makes no sense. The main thing I brought up was how slots in detachments weren't ever a challenge, you never feel like you run out of space. You have more than enough slots for whatever you want to bring with no issues which I feel is a shame, in a way it is like putting a shirt on that is too big for you but still works.

Would be nice to have to consider sacrificing CP for those units I want in such numbers. (maybe making the core three detachments actual troop specialist detachments but in turn the specialist detachments have no troop slots).

[Noserenda]

Oh wow, im always finding it a constant struggle to fit things in, i guess you might just be more in synch with how GW is building armies? 
 

[Halandaar]

Oh wow, im always finding it a constant struggle to fit things in, i guess you might just be more in synch with how GW is building armies? 

 

It varies from one faction to the next for me. Some armies have issues with most of their good options occupying the same force-org slots.

 

Actually one thing I wish i'd asked for is that they would either punish or remove the ability to spam the same few units over and over again. It doesn't matter how well designed or balanced books are, people will always hone in the most efficient choices and take multiples of those, and nothing seems more tasteless to me than an army which is 3 of the same Fast Attack, 3 of the same Heavy Support etc.

[Tawnis]

 

Oh wow, im always finding it a constant struggle to fit things in, i guess you might just be more in synch with how GW is building armies? 

 

It varies from one faction to the next for me. Some armies have issues with most of their good options occupying the same force-org slots.

 

Actually one thing I wish i'd asked for is that they would either punish or remove the ability to spam the same few units over and over again. It doesn't matter how well designed or balanced books are, people will always hone in the most efficient choices and take multiples of those, and nothing seems more tasteless to me than an army which is 3 of the same Fast Attack, 3 of the same Heavy Support etc.

 

Totally agree. I think outside of Troop Choices, units should be restricted to one of each type (per X amount of points or maybe per detachement? IDK, there's a sweet spot there somewhere) or unless you've taken them all (al la Harlequins). 

 

This would also make people debate if taking a larger "better" unit and being less maneuverable and more vulnerable to blast vs a bit of a weaker unit that gives you more mobility, extra squad leader, less vulnerable to blast, ect. A good way of "buffing" less powerful units without actually changing anything. 

 

Addendum: Then again, the more I think about it, it comes with another host of problems, it cut's down on thematic armies. I want to play all Scouts for fun, nope they're elites. Same if I wanted to do a first company terminator strike force... I think there certainly is a problem, but now I'm not too sure about the best way to handle it.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Tawnis

[Khornestar]

Different strokes, I guess. I do see the problem with spamming certain units but I don’t think it’s always a problem. I like a fairly narrow range of units and models in, e.g., my World Eaters army. Berzerker spam, rhino spam, Dreadclaw spam, terminator spam, and whatever minimum HQ options and friends for flavor. Taste is taste, after all. My low tier player status probably doesn’t help that combo of units but my opponents are usually happy to face off against a mostly painted/fluffy army.

 

If it was purely based on efficiency, I don’t think anyone would be shocked to see a combination of 3 unique units with whatever optimum loadouts replacing the status quo. An argument could be made for the visual element but that would again be a matter of taste. I think it’s more indicative of a competitive mindset equating to create “every possible advantage toward victory” (except willful cheating), I bet we’ve seen it among subsets of players for every game we’ve ever played in our lives.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Juggernut

[phandaal]

Restricting people to a single of each type would need some flexibility for things like Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead detachments. Sounds too harsh in general though.

[Halandaar]

If it was purely based on efficiency, I don’t think anyone would be shocked to see a combination of 3 unique units with whatever optimum loadouts replacing the status quo. 

 

Yeah, no doubt "take best choice x3" would just become "take choices #1, #2 and #3"

 

Restricting people to a single of each type would need some flexibility for things like Outrider/Vanguard/Spearhead detachments. Sounds too harsh in general though.

 

I'm not necessarily suggesting the game goes full "highlander", but something to incentivise choosing unique units would be nice. Almost like the Armies of Renown system, where there are extra rules for building an army without certain units.

[LameBeard]

I was thinking of a system where you pay a little more points each time you take a unit an additional time. But I guess that is a bit too much “maths, and maths is not fun” for most people.

 

But a system where the cost of a stratagem doubles for every subsequent use could work.

[Noserenda]

Yeah ive always hated Centurion/Highlander restrictions because they just shift the issue of spam very slightly whilst utterly destroying most army themes. That and they punish smaller codexes a lot harder than bigger ones who have a fraction of the number of options.

[phandaal]

Spam really is not the problem anyway. Individual units being oppressive is the problem.

[Dark Shepherd]

Spam really is not the problem anyway. Individual units being oppressive is the problem.

Id say both are, along with unit size, if a unit is overpowered and or with certain strats or combos, then 3 of them is a bigger problem, even more so in some cases when that unit can have 20 or 30 models

[Laughingman]

Before we vote away stratagems... They are a convenient alternative to overly complex USRs, datasheets and unit upgrades we saw in previous editions. They also are a reasonable band-aid to buff under-performing units between codex releases.

 

That said.... Some factions have dozens of mediocre/overly situational stratagems, a lot of these can be eliminated with minimal fuss. Other stratagems were clearly buffs on  individual units/wargear and should be reworked/rolled into datasheets when they update a codex/edition.  I feel that 5-15 relevant and competitive stratagems per faction is an ideal number.

[phandaal]

Yeah, that is what I am getting at. If a unit is OP or just very strong, then spamming that unit can be oppressive.

 

But spamming units in and of itself is not a problem. Nobody would look at me taking 3 units of Reivers and think it was a game-winning move, for example.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I love 'spamming' three Whirlwinds in support of half a Company of Tacticals in Razorbacks.

That is thematic as hell, not OP in the slightest.

 

The issue is unit balance not spam.

This becomes worse the more of that unit you have of course but the issue remains the balance.

 

The beauty of ditching strats and all the other millions of buffs that are not on it's datasheet is that a unit can be evaluated on it's own merit far more easily.

A unit does not need to be 'bland' just not designed to be interesting a result of combos.

 

Then if they adopt a regular point adjustment the units being spammed cost the right amount for what they bring.

 

I wrote stuff to that effect, without the examples ofc.

 

A unit might not be OP unless you buff it with strats, traits, doctrines, psychics, relics and bubbles.

Then it may very well be OP for the total cost.

[Noserenda]

Stratagems do actually help mitigate spam as well to an extent, which also allows certain units to have a slightly more powerful ability through stratagems as it is limited to one per turn and costs you. 

The example that brought this to mind being the Shroud field strat for the Blackstar, it might be oppressive if your opponent had a bunch of them running at once but as is you can spend to keep the most important one stealthed each turn.

[Beta galactosidase]

Someone used this very useful term on another post, the ones I bolded:

 

The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.

I decided when I answered that I’d tell them what my experiences are during a game

[Interrogator Stobz]

I agree that they can lift bad units, but equally they can and regularly do make things more OP.

People here openly admit loving to find power combos. It does provide joy for them, but almost without exception not their opposition.

 

I hold by the problem being that calculating that change is near impossible from a cost/balance pov.

 

Without them the game becomes stable enough to balance with point changes every so often.

[Halandaar]

Some stratagems just feel plain weird as well. Like Transhuman Physiology; why does it require a force commander spending their time and tactical resources to vox over to a specific squad and say "Hey guys, could you just be harder to kill for a bit? cheers." 

 

It's not like the protective properties of a Marine's physiology fluctuates form one firefight to the next and can be called upon at will. Just make them tough to kill and then point them appropriately (or just drop it), because having it as a tactical ability makes less than zero sense.

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

I think the problem with Transhuman, for example, is that tying the abilities to “Command Points” leaves the feeling that all strategems are snap orders from a commander.

 

I find using Transhuman to be thematic as all get-out: my Marines using it know they’re the essential cog in the mission plan, so they go above-and-beyond in the pivotal moment of the battle. Them fighting on through wounds that would normally even fell a Space Marine at the moment when it’s most needed is what the strat (and the CP use) represents.

 

I think the right way to look at CP is not as “orders” but rather as a limited set of “go the extra mile” effort by your troops, possibly from a command but also possibly just from having been briefed on the importance of their role in the mission during the planning stages.

 

All that said, I agree that strats should be thinned out a bit (and said as much in the survey). But Transhuman Physiology is exactly the sort of thing I think should be limited in use rather than a USR, and it makes thematic sense for it to be that, too.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Brother Captain Vakarian

[Halandaar]

I think the problem with Transhuman, for example, is that tying the abilities to “Command Points” leaves the feeling that all strategems are snap orders from a commander.

 

That is quite literally the way GW described them when they were introduced:

 

These represent your army’s commanders marshalling their forces and vital orders coming down from high command (that’s you!).

 

And exactly why such abilities make no sense as stratagems. Another thing is that, despite your description of how Transhuman can feel thematic (which is nice, don't get me wrong), the game system allows your same squad to make their Heroic "above and beyond"/"extra mile" effort turn after turn after turn, as long as you have the CP for it. It would make much more sense as a "once per game" ability on the unit's datasheet.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Halandaar

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

Having just come back recently, I’d never seen that description. I’ll keep viewing them as a more nebulous resource, personally, regardless of that particular description.

 

But I agree that once-per-game limitations on the particularly strong options would probably be a good change, and fit the way I envision them.

[INKS]

Note: I am talking mostly about competitive play here. I am not interested in Crusade at all. 

 

There are far too many re-rolls in the game currently. It's a game of variance and they are doing what they can to eliminate some of that. Which I can understand why they would want to do that. However, the game is now flooded with rerolls to hit, to wound, to morale checks, to psychic tests and so on and so on. 

 

I also think the game has become way too kill-y. This 10 man squad gets 34 shots, re-roll to hit, re-roll to wound and so on. (made up numbers but you get the idea) I can do 30+ MW in a single turn. I can move, double move and charge 30+ inches in a single turn. All on a smaller board (I actually like the smaller board)

 

I don't think every mission should be about ob-sec. There should be more variety when it comes to missions and objectives. The competitive games are largely about ignoring your opponent or minimum interaction and just score as many points as you can. 

 

Planes / Flyers really need proper balance and or be taken out of the game. I am not sure how well they work to begin with. But they are either cheap, oppressive and OP or too expensive and never used. Also I don't mean models with flying but "flyers".

 

Stratagems really need to be looked at. Some are ok, some are not. There are probably other people here who have more insight into this. But I do notice that sometimes they are a real problem. Maybe more of them should be 1 use per game.

 

Also for the comment above. I don't see a problem with someone being a Rules Analyst. It's important to understand the rules. Even the top players make mistakes. 

[LameBeard]

+1 on getting rid of rerolls. I told them in the survey I hadn’t seen so many since “BloodBowl Companion” in the 90s.

[ThePenitentOne]

Someone used this very useful term on another post, the ones I bolded:

 

The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.

I decided when I answered that I’d tell them what my experiences are during a game

 

LOL- this was me!

 

If I recall correctly, the post you quoted was something I put up on Dakka, not B&C.

 

Some context:

 

They guy I was responding to said that GW only wanted feedback from people who play the current edition because " They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards."

 

This a dude who often writes intelligent critique, but is also excessively negative, and not above the occasional personal attack.

 

I wrote the post with the tone I did because I was responding to his tone. I do not throw around phrases like those you bolded without provocation.

 

They seem odd here, because B&C tends to be my safe space when the negativity of Dakka gets me down.