Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

 

That doesn't solve the problem with some armies being better at scoring particular objectives than others at all.

 

In fact, you could argue that this makes it much worse. Kill points the objective? Knights win by default. Pure objective capturing? Play fast MSU or lose before the game even starts.

 

 

Those four sentences I wrote were not intended to be the blueprint for solving faction imbalance.

 

Factions being imbalanced does not make Matched Play the most balanced game mode, because the additional layers in Matched Play only serve to compound the existing imbalance.

 

 

Thats a very good point actually, did GW ever actually sell packs of datasheets? It feels like a no brainer and im sure they did but i might just be confusing with AoS

They do in AoS and they did for Apocalypse.

Itd be one big card deck for marines but I think theyd be popular

 

 

 

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

 

 

You're confusing most fair with 100% fair. Narrative and Open are much less fair. Out of the three ways to play it is undeniably the most fair period, so that's become the standard way to play.

 

 

Disagree that Matched Play became the standard because it was the most fair.

 

And no, I am not confusing most fair and 100% fair. No need for mind reading here.

 

 

If that's not what's happening here then it seems we're simply talking about different things. Happens.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

 

That doesn't solve the problem with some armies being better at scoring particular objectives than others at all.

 

In fact, you could argue that this makes it much worse. Kill points the objective? Knights win by default. Pure objective capturing? Play fast MSU or lose before the game even starts.

 

 

Those four sentences I wrote were not intended to be the blueprint for solving faction imbalance.

 

Factions being imbalanced does not make Matched Play the most balanced game mode, because the additional layers in Matched Play only serve to compound the existing imbalance.

 

That's not what you said though. What you said was "The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules." which is the specific point I was arguing against. Because it's not correct.

 

even the battle forged army rule part is wrong. Put Sisters of Battle up against space marines with neither having access to any of their faction special rules, chapter tactics, stratagem, relics, etc and Sisters of battle wouldn't last half a turn.

Edited by Blurf

 

- Snip -

 

even the battle forged army rule part is wrong. Put Sisters of Battle up against space marines with neither having access to any of their faction special rules, chapter tactics, stratagem, relics, etc and Sisters of battle wouldn't last half a turn.

 

 

There is no way SoB would only last a turn half, heck they have an equal chance to go first at which point they're guaranteed to. I'm not suggesting SoB would be better than Marines, but the game would be sustainably less lethal without chapter tactics, relics, stratagems, etc. That said I think if you took out stratagems you would have to do some pretty major balance updates. They won't do it mid edition, and honestly they may never do it, stratagems give people a reason to buy campaign supplements that should be easier to balance. 

I think 40k should be two rules sets at this point, as they will never please both ends of the crowd with one.

 

One set ultra streamlined and fast, with points and what nots. For the beginners and tourny folks, to bang out some fast games. Call it 40k. Codexes are balanced for this version, and points are updated regularly for free. Codexes are short rules only books.

 

One where there is a lot of optional systems, narrative scenarios, crusade and campaign rules. Vehicle damage tables, character and vehicle creation rules etc. Call it 40k: Rogue Trader. With bigger faction books full of fluff, art and hobby inspo, faction campaign content and so on.

 

If not that, then I really think strategems and secondary objectives needs to go away again. And while some of the army rules are interesting, like crossfire (although that should really be a standard rule), some like the Custard Katah are just hella convoluted.

 

I am all for campaign books and a steady stream of new fluff, but any army based rules should really be in a free pdf at the same time, and points should be free.

 

Ultimately though I think the game needs a complete rethink from the ground up, free from the constraints of what came before. Like what AoS did for Warhammer. Not that the systems needs to be the same, I am not advocating that.

Edited by Redcomet

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.