Balance

[Deschenus Maximus]

So assuming GW was not going to amend the rules to diminish the gap between infantry and tanks (such as by removing the triple March for infantry, or allowing tanks to use their saves in melee), by about how much would they need to cut the point cost of the latter to bring them to rough parity with the former?

[Interrogator Stobz]

I would rather just change the system. 

Changing points can mean changing how many minis we use, which affects the financial part of the hobby. Not keen on that.

 

My next game I'm going to play and mathhammer the use of saves of melee.

So far, just restricting outnumbering dice to 3 has worked OK, more may be needed....

[Valkyrion]

Infantry should be 10 points per base and work up from there. (e.g 12 for missiles and SA axes, 15 for terminators and ogryns etc). 

If that feels too steep then double their OC too if you like.

 

Vehicles are tricky because of the options, but if you add 1 model to each detachments base starting size and don't alter the cost then you'll be approaching par, I think. (so Kratos become 3 for 150 instead of 2, predators are 4 for 105 instead of 3 etc). You've doubled infantry cost and vehicles have a 20-30% hidden discount. 

[Gundric]

I think everyone should get a save in melee!

 

How's this armour save is rolled for melee hits. Rend now ignores armour on targets the same scale or less and -1 to one size above. I think this fairly balances rend in the process. Saved hits count as a draw. Combats will be less decisive now though.

 

Triple moving infantry are nonsense, double at the very best if not 1.5 times. Or my favourite, d6 extra inches. Makes transports more worthwhile.

Edit: rend doesn't add an extra dice, just the mechanic above.

Edited September 2 by Gundric

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

Changing points can mean changing how many minis we use, which affects the financial part of the hobby. Not keen on that.

That’s exactly why I think that’s what GW will do, if anything. Make tanks cheaper and all of a sudden, people have spare points in their lists that they need to fill.

[Valkyrion]

A consolidated book must be due within the next 12 months. We're already on three books and there's no marine Super Heavies, Vindicators, Scorpius, Cerberus, Breachers, Seekers, Recons, and I can't imagine all of those will come in a single book, so this time next year we might be on to 6+ books to cover the full range. That in and of itself is enough to turn people away, so surely an equivalent of Codex Legions Astartes and Codex Solar Auxilia will be on the cards, and it's then we'll see updated points I think. 

[Crablezworth]

Not to give GW any credit but, having now made a lot of home brew units, it's really difficult to nail a point cost because it's more about the units relative cost to everything else than some precise metric of value/performance. Add to that they then do the weird point savings for expanding detachments, or I should say they're back to it after inexplicably dropping it for all of book 2's detachments. 

 

It's worth pointing out they wouldn't need to do point saving incentives for expanding existing detachments if they just had an actual cap on formations/detachments. 

 

I think everyone has the right idea with removing 3x march and allowing saves in combat. The best argument I have for allowing saves in combat is its so clunky to resolve anyway seeing as it's done one at a time you may as well take saves. I just think the current way it works isn't tenable, there's basically never a a reason for most infantry to shoot when they can charge, so they do most of the time if they're not missile marines. I'd also add no blind charges, and hell even charge range being 10 inches seems like a lot. I'd also love them to drop the weird blob/super unit of mixed infantry, and instead have detachments allowed to have a certain number of rapiers attached. Rend needs fixing or marines at least need a unit with it. 

 

There's also a problem of internal economy for army's tanks. Kratos just flat out wins for legion, the save, the cost, the efficacy, all too much to pass up. On the solar aux side, pretty much all of the malc's imo are over-costed, they just cost too much for something with a worse save than a russ and the russ largely just wins on save alone, but on top of that you've got the vanquisher cannon.  

 

 

Edited September 2 by Crablezworth

[DuskRaider]

I don’t know, I still find Predators have great usage in the game. They’re cheap, they can be taken in large numbers and can be equipped with all-Lascannons. Don’t get me wrong, I love Kratos and currently they’re the only tank Astartes have for knocking down buildings, but their points add up quickly depending on what they’re complimenting. 

[Crablezworth]

 

I don’t know, I still find Predators have great usage in the game. They’re cheap, they can be taken in large numbers and can be equipped with all-Lascannons. Don’t get me wrong, I love Kratos and currently they’re the only tank Astartes have for knocking down buildings, but their points add up quickly depending on what they’re complimenting. 

 

Preds are fine and you need them to unlock kratos, I just mean pure bang for the buck kratos are tip of the pyramid. Malcs/sicarans could use a bit of help, the newer sicarans are decent, the older ones are so-so. Malcadors are really weird, they have something like 50+ different loadouts but many are a bit of a trap. 

[Deschenus Maximus]

Crabs is right - when you do the math, it’s not really comparable. Kratos are just way more survivable and lethal compared to an equivalent amount of points of Predator.

[Crablezworth]

 

Crabs is right - when you do the math, it’s not really comparable. Kratos are just way more survivable and lethal compared to an equivalent amount of points of Predator.

 

It's also the accurate, it's such useful trait and can come up in situations outside of normal shooting attacks, like overwatch/shooting at flyers. Like we've seen with massed las contemptor fire, the re-roll is so damn useful for everything, even situations like units with with cover modifier. 

 

 

 

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

 

It's also the accurate, it's such useful trait and can come up in situations outside of normal shooting attacks, like overwatch/shooting at flyers. Like we've seen with massed las contemptor fire, the re-roll is so damn useful for everything, even situations like units with with cover modifier. 

 

 

 

In fairness, the Preds do have Accurate on their turret Lascannon as well. In that specific regard (amount of Accurate lascannons per points), Preds and Kratoses are pretty equal... but then you add the Kratos Battlecannon and the coax autocannon and things just fall off the rails in terms of balance.

[Crablezworth]

For sure, and I do regret only building a couple all las predators, I'd like to make 4-6 more. I think the deadly fog/18 inch limit though might swing back towards autocannon/las sponsons for preds, then again the -1 is probably pretty rough on pred autocannons. 

[Pacific81]

To be massively cynical and sarcastic for a moment, I think the only way infantry will become double movement is if there a pile of a few hundred boxes of Rhinos unsold in a warehouse somewhere! (I am only half joking here).

 

Someone did make the point that it felt like the game had been theory-hammered a lot rather than actually played. A few of the points mismatches (support infantry etc.) and vehicle loadouts are so out of sync that you have to think they would have been picked up almost immediately if there had been any significant playtesting.

So while no game is perfect, I would say Legions falls well short of most other games, or even previous versions of Epic for that matter.

 

We can expect the forthcoming Mantic Epic game, which has reputedly got dozens of people playtesting, to find those sorts of egregious outliers, even if it doesn't get it exactly right.

[Crablezworth]

 

To be massively cynical and sarcastic for a moment, I think the only way infantry will become double movement is if there a pile of a few hundred boxes of Rhinos unsold in a warehouse somewhere! (I am only half joking here).

 

Someone did make the point that it felt like the game had been theory-hammered a lot rather than actually played. A few of the points mismatches (support infantry etc.) and vehicle loadouts are so out of sync that you have to think they would have been picked up almost immediately if there had been any significant playtesting.

So while no game is perfect, I would say Legions falls well short of most other games, or even previous versions of Epic for that matter.

 

We can expect the forthcoming Mantic Epic game, which has reputedly got dozens of people playtesting, to find those sorts of egregious outliers, even if it doesn't get it exactly right.

 

 

Well they cynically can march out of transports too so sadly so might not effect rhino sales but ya, I'm not sure gw will ever address it. 

 

It really does seem like it wasn't played so much as stitched together. I think gw can be shamed though, even if they'll never directly own up to things, I can't help but feel stuff like the deadly fog rules may have come about as a result of seeing what people actually run at warhammer world in terms of events. I think it'd be difficult to work on the game only to see the meta is a sea of infantry and 750pt walker. 

 

 

My only problem with the mantic game is the models don't do very much for me.

[Noserenda]

I think something SGS struggles with in most of its games is rules nostalgia, they often include mechanics from the older iterations of games that had been abandoned by the original writers for good reasons and therefore struggle with them, especially when mixed with newer developments they dont work with cleanly.

But theyve made it part of their brand now, so archaic mechanisms it is... I dont think its a cooincidence than their best games are Titanicus and Necromunda which were both designed from the ground up with some homages.