WARCOM: basic 40k SURVEY! - discussion

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the fighting game analogy is actually pretty good. I've played a lot of strive and I think the main difference between 40k and a game like Strive is that alot of the most powerful options are universal. For those that don't play fighting games most have meter based mechanics which you spend to do your best moves. In Strives case each character has two ultimate moves, and the rest of the meter moves are universal. Some are great defensive choices, some extend combos, and some just let you reset to neutral (gain space). 

 

It would sorta be like having 20 universal stratagems and like 4 fraction specific ones to use CP on.

 

I also agree with your take on USRs going from one extreme to another. I don't mind it as a much, because I like the rules being on the dataslates and in the codex, I just think they shouldn't be afraid to have more things work the same instead of trying to make tweaks so the rules look more different than they are.

[MegaVolt87]

It's crazy that GW have had 9 Editions and 30 years to get their main game right.

They nailed AT18 and to a large extent KT21 proving they can do it right. But they don't.

I think these surveys whilst a show of good faith are trying to design a game by committee and passing responsibility onto players instead of them using their obvious expertise to create a solid and enduring core ruleset.

 

The great thing about AT18 and KT21 is not needing codex equivalents (until they wreck that through their book selling greed too).

All the bloat that many people have commented on is there in the Dexes, that needs addressing badly.

Either simplified key words or a brutal streamlining ala 2nd-3rd Ed to encourage scaling the game up.

 

The best thing about AT18 and KT21 is they hit the sweet spot for complexity, there is tonnes of room for personality but are easy to pick up and play every couple of months without masses of study.

40k should be the same just using units instead of individual minis.

 

Design by committee is probably the way to go honestly. If it was an open dev situation for rules with public community input we would not have seen something like OG 8th ed IH at release. Or the problematic DE and Admech in 9th. Anyone can do anything for a long time- it doesn't mean they are necessarily good at it or know exactly what they are doing. GW devs get paid peanuts apparently, but we have seen great ideas in the online community for free. I think there is a multitude of people who would be happy their ideas are used and the only payment needed would be a name/community acknowledgement in the front page/copyright bit of a codex/ rulebook. 

[Orange Knight]

I'm not sure if design by committee produces the best things. Take movies for example; the singular vision of the right director/story writer produces far better and more compelling results than a movie that meets the criteria of the suits in some committee.

 

I would rather have a small team of dedicated and knowledgeable people with a unified vision creating the rules. Every discussion on the subject of likes and dislikes regarding 40k exposes massive disparities in the views of the community, and from my personal perspective, I loathe as many of them as I like.

[phandaal]

The key thing is GW needs something/someone to put the brakes on rules inflation and the most egregious new rules for each faction. That would solve many problems. Although potentially would not sell as many new models... probably why it it has not happened yet.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Yeah like now Hive Guard are busted as can be… you know they don’t understand, nor seem to want to either.

[Xenith]

The key thing is GW needs something/someone to put the brakes on rules inflation and the most egregious new rules for each faction. That would solve many problems. Although potentially would not sell as many new models... probably why it it has not happened yet.

 

Counterpoint being, that if you make every unit in a book balanced...players buy/collect what they like and buy more in the end? Or if players feel they have a good chance of winning regardless of what they bring, they might try to make weirder, left field themed armies?

 

I think the increasing strength of each codex really winnows out usable units in older codex, which then hurts GW's sales. Remember at the start of 8th, when the indexes suddenly made a bunch of classic units 'good'? Things like the exocrine were sold out for months! 

[phandaal]

 

The key thing is GW needs something/someone to put the brakes on rules inflation and the most egregious new rules for each faction. That would solve many problems. Although potentially would not sell as many new models... probably why it it has not happened yet.

 

Counterpoint being, that if you make every unit in a book balanced...players buy/collect what they like and buy more in the end? Or if players feel they have a good chance of winning regardless of what they bring, they might try to make weirder, left field themed armies?

 

I think the increasing strength of each codex really winnows out usable units in older codex, which then hurts GW's sales. Remember at the start of 8th, when the indexes suddenly made a bunch of classic units 'good'? Things like the exocrine were sold out for months! 

 

 

Agreed. My interpretation is that GW is in fact allowing or even encouraging flashy new units to sell models, but that it is not viable long term. Everyone knows that a major consideration for any new player buying their first models is "are these any good?" Well, they might be good if they are new, but not for long - a new codex is on the way.

 

Short term, people might pick up a lot of new models. Long term, they dip out. Only so many times that can be repeated with new customers until you have churned your way through the target market.

[OldWherewolf]

 

The key thing is GW needs something/someone to put the brakes on rules inflation and the most egregious new rules for each faction. That would solve many problems. Although potentially would not sell as many new models... probably why it it has not happened yet.

 

Counterpoint being, that if you make every unit in a book balanced...players buy/collect what they like and buy more in the end? Or if players feel they have a good chance of winning regardless of what they bring, they might try to make weirder, left field themed armies?

 

I think the increasing strength of each codex really winnows out usable units in older codex, which then hurts GW's sales. Remember at the start of 8th, when the indexes suddenly made a bunch of classic units 'good'? Things like the exocrine were sold out for months! 

 

Perfect example, IG Manticores.  They're one of the good units, so they're hard to find.  In the meantime, Basilisks, Wyverns, HWTs, hellhounds, and the other not-so-good units (like Commissars and the SW Hounds of Morkai) languish on the shelves in the store and gather dust on our shelves.  The more balanced the units are, the more varied the army lists, the more of each type of unit GW would sell.  

 

There will always be the 1%-ers that if all else is equal, they'd just buy the units that are 1% better, but I think individual playstyles can overcome that 1% or even 5% difference.  But if I had to ballpark it, the S-tier armies were more than 10% above A-Tier.  At that threshold, A-Tier armies and below have to tune their lists to the top units to even have a chance at a game. 

[ThePenitentOne]

I'm not 100% sure I agree with many of the sentiments expressed- I've always been an outlier in this or any other game because I've always liked options.

 

Index hammer may have been balanced- but at the cost of a pallor of bland sameness over the entire game. It bored me to tears. 

 

I WANT every army to play and feel differently, and I want every unit in every army to play and feel differently. If that means imbalance, it's worth it to me. If that means complexity and the occasional gotcha moment, it's worth it to me. In 32 years, I've never really played to win- this game has always been about storytelling and world building to me.

 

When the only difference between army a and army b is what the models look like, that's perfect external balance. When the only difference between the units within each battlefield role inside each army is what the models look like, that's perfect internal balance. And it's boring as f***. You might as well play checkers or chess.

 

Space marines will always have BA, DA, SW- they will always be priveleged and special, and everyone will always be okay with that.

 

But Emperor forbid any other faction gets unique subfaction rules, cuz that's just bloat.

 

Caveat: Obviously I'm being hyperbolic here- I know that no one is actually advocating for every army to be the same; I know no-one is actually advocating for every unit within each battlefield role to be the same. I also know that everyone else wants different things from the game, and it is unrealistic to want or expect the game to continue to cater to me and a small handful of people like me when the vast majority seem to want a return to a more typical war-game design, vs the glorious wargame/RPG/CCG hybrid that we have now.

 

GW tried to make three versions of the game so that everyone would be able to have their cake and eat it too... but that didn't really work, because Matched isn't stripped down enough for people. It would be nice if any stripping down was matched only. The recent patch seems to indicate GW is going to try this- my Crusade can still use as many fliers as I always could. Time will tell.

[phandaal]

 

Space marines will always have BA, DA, SW- they will always be priveleged and special, and everyone will always be okay with that.

 

But Emperor forbid any other faction gets unique subfaction rules, cuz that's just bloat.

 

As you say - this is hyperbolic.

 

Not one person here has said "get rid of strategems (except for Space Marines)."

 

Also, people were flipping their lids over the new rules Dark Angels got 9 months ago... so we do not need to pretend this is because some snowflakes are not special enough. People do not like the bloat, even if it is (temporarily) beneficial to a Space Marine chapter.

Edited November 17, 2021 by phandaal

[Dark Shepherd]

The key thing is GW needs something/someone to put the brakes on rules inflation and the most egregious new rules for each faction. That would solve many problems. Although potentially would not sell as many new models... probably why it it has not happened yet.

I think theres a load of small tweaks they could make to make the codexes easier to balance (during the testing phase)

 

One warlord trait per army

One relic per army

One subfaction per army (as in 2000 point list not faction or codex)

Reduce maximum unit size of certain units (especially vehicle squadrons)

Various strategem reductions eg one per turn, all strats only usable once

Make most or all secondaries mission specific (ending faction specific secondaries)

 

I think a lot of the above of victims of them trying to let everyone get to use every awesome trick going, which just doesnt work out

Edited November 18, 2021 by Dark Shepherd

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I'm not 100% sure I agree with many of the sentiments expressed- I've always been an outlier in this or any other game because I've always liked options.

 

Index hammer may have been balanced- but at the cost of a pallor of bland sameness over the entire game. It bored me to tears. 

 

I WANT every army to play and feel differently, and I want every unit in every army to play and feel differently. If that means imbalance, it's worth it to me. If that means complexity and the occasional gotcha moment, it's worth it to me. In 32 years, I've never really played to win- this game has always been about storytelling and world building to me.

 

When the only difference between army a and army b is what the models look like, that's perfect external balance. When the only difference between the units within each battlefield role inside each army is what the models look like, that's perfect internal balance. And it's boring as f***. You might as well play checkers or chess.

 

Space marines will always have BA, DA, SW- they will always be priveleged and special, and everyone will always be okay with that.

 

But Emperor forbid any other faction gets unique subfaction rules, cuz that's just bloat.

 

Caveat: Obviously I'm being hyperbolic here- I know that no one is actually advocating for every army to be the same; I know no-one is actually advocating for every unit within each battlefield role to be the same. I also know that everyone else wants different things from the game, and it is unrealistic to want or expect the game to continue to cater to me and a small handful of people like me when the vast majority seem to want a return to a more typical war-game design, vs the glorious wargame/RPG/CCG hybrid that we have now.

 

GW tried to make three versions of the game so that everyone would be able to have their cake and eat it too... but that didn't really work, because Matched isn't stripped down enough for people. It would be nice if any stripping down was matched only. The recent patch seems to indicate GW is going to try this- my Crusade can still use as many fliers as I always could. Time will tell.

 

I don't think think that most of the people in this thread have gone after sub fractions at all. Most of the complaining has been squarely on stratagems, and I would think that would be felt more by marine players than the other fractions. For example my Sisters have one sub fraction stratagem compared to two pages for my wolves. In my opinion my sub fraction stratagem isn't really core to how the army plays with my SoB. I'd say the same for my wolves. 

 

That said I get where your coming from. I actually like the secondary objectives my issues with the mission pack at this point has more to do with the 6 objective missions with hold one, hold two, or hold more. You can almost max out the primary by just holding two objectives (40 of 45 points), and that makes the secondary objectives feel like the primaries in those missions. 

 

I also think they should have printed a secondary objective for each army that doesn't have a codex in Chapter Approved. 

 

For what its worth unique sub fraction rules aren't going anywhere. 

[Noserenda]

Yeah it would be a bold choice to squat most of the chapter rules... Sorry, only Iron Hands get special shinies now!

[Dark Shepherd]

Yeah it would be a bold choice to squat most of the chapter rules... Sorry, only Iron Hands get special shinies now!

Theyve increased the subfaction options and thats been popular. A balance issue IMO is when people start mixing and matching them in their list eg Mars and Lucius in the same Admech list

[Khornestar]

 

Yeah it would be a bold choice to squat most of the chapter rules... Sorry, only Iron Hands get special shinies now!

Theyve increased the subfaction options and thats been popular. A balance issue IMO is when people start mixing and matching them in their list eg Mars and Lucius in the same Admech list

Agreed. I don’t think it would be particularly egregious to remove the ability to do that in matched play. Leaning on a given subfaction’s strengths and accepting its drawbacks is part of the theoretical balance. Having units Good at shooting in a faction all in one detachment, and then taking other subfaction rules for the other units focused on other things and putting them in another detachment just bypasses that. CP cost doesn’t really deter it. Edited November 21, 2021 by Juggernut

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

This is a good point - I also think it’d be better for the health of the game to impose some penalties to a list that has more than one sub faction (like SM).

[Khornestar]

This is a good point - I also think it’d be better for the health of the game to impose some penalties to a list that has more than one sub faction (like SM).

And they are curtailing our ability to do it with restrictions like CSM psychic powers only affecting that given LEGION, so I imagine additional restrictions could happen, because it still wouldn’t prevent each sub faction from just functioning with the rest of their rules and buffs.

[OldWherewolf]

The only problem is armies like IG which rely on scion would get hammered, because we take scions in separate detachment to get the rules which enable them to function.  IG are in a bad enough spot as it is.

 

It's hard to curb abuses like Mars/Lucius while still enabling IG/Scions with blanket rules.  You could do it with army-specific rules like Data-Tether doesn't work across different <Forge World> units, but that still won't curb taking specific unit(s) from a specific sub-factions for basic rule synergies.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

This is a good point - I also think it’d be better for the health of the game to impose some penalties to a list that has more than one sub faction (like SM).

And they are curtailing our ability to do it with restrictions like CSM psychic powers only affecting that given LEGION, so I imagine additional restrictions could happen, because it still wouldn’t prevent each sub faction from just functioning with the rest of their rules and buffs.

 

 

I don't think it would take a lot of work to make it so armies with two sub-fractions have some drawbacks. For example you could make it so TS wouldn't get cabal points if they had two subfractions, because they wouldn't trust each other enough to share their resources. The combination of fraction abilities might end up being stronger than that bonus (I doubt it cabal points are crazy), but you are at least trading something for the benefit. 

 

The only problem is armies like IG which rely on scion would get hammered, because we take scions in separate detachment to get the rules which enable them to function.  IG are in a bad enough spot as it is.

 

It's hard to curb abuses like Mars/Lucius while still enabling IG/Scions with blanket rules.  You could do it with army-specific rules like Data-Tether doesn't work across different <Forge World> units, but that still won't curb taking specific unit(s) from a specific sub-factions for basic rule synergies.

 

The thing is that guard as of now don't have an ability that they should give up. There isn't any army wide bonus that you give up for allies. As an example SoB lose miracle dice if they ally with other imperial forces, and probably should lose it if two orders are fighting together. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[Khornestar]

Yeah I think there are more nuanced ways of handling it than just blanket preventing us from mixing and matching detachments/subfactions, though that hasn't always been their style. I think the error was separating scions and guard in the first place, in that particular scenario, so who knows? Maybe they'll merge them again, maybe not.

[Dark Shepherd]

Yeah I think there are more nuanced ways of handling it than just blanket preventing us from mixing and matching detachments/subfactions, though that hasn't always been their style. I think the error was separating scions and guard in the first place, in that particular scenario, so who knows? Maybe they'll merge them again, maybe not.

Definitely more nuanced ways, but its idiotproofing/a GW friendly solution for a GW problem ie and easy fix

 

I wouldnt even see Scions as a separate subfaction. Scions as a regiment but Veterans or Stormtroopers as generics?