Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Balancing 40K


  • Please log in to reply
281 replies to this topic

#276
Zodd1888

Zodd1888

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 703 posts
Super simple. I like it.

Edit: Solves CP/Strategem issue. Doesn't solve Elite/Horde issue.

Edited by Zodd1888, 25 February 2018 - 03:26 AM.


#277
chapter master 454

chapter master 454

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,437 posts
  • Location:Fife
  • Faction: Angels of Justice

Super simple. I like it.

Edit: Solves CP/Strategem issue. Doesn't solve Elite/Horde issue.

 

That is a larger issue all together.

 

Certainly like the idea of taxing however it may be that to some extent I wonder its effectiveness really. If we really are worried about CP spam, then taxing 1 CP isn't going to stop too much silliness as after all we have stated they have plenty to go around. I would push a harder tax, possibly a multiplier rather than addition. After all, takes a lot for some standard Imperial Guard commander to call in an orbital bombardment or the like. It means bigger stratagems become stupidly expensive and thus aren't available outside of the intended army while smaller stratagems can be used but not heavily.

 

In terms of Horde vs. Elite, it is an issue that just seems to be an issue whole unto itself. In terms of design, I find it annoying that large blast weapons really do not cut the mustard vs. horde when they really should. This comes around to how the random shots application has been relatively good in some regards and terrible in others. Good in making the game go faster and reduce arguments over false placement of the template because of parallax disagreements and also stops people wasting time over "I'm allowed to have them 2" apart thank you" whenever blast did appear. As it stands, blast doesn't do nearly enough to thin out hordes and those weapons need serious buffs or price drops, one or the other because some a stupidly priced.


http://www.bolterand...rk-in-progress/ my own chapter, still working on it
"The objective of playing a game is to win. The point of playing a game is to have fun. Never confuse the two"

What do you call an Imperial Guardsman with a laser sight? Twin-Linked!

 

 


#278
Tyriks

Tyriks

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,115 posts
  • Location:Ohio
What were formerly blast weapons should not be flat d6 shots. It should be something like d6 per 5 models in the target. Or some other way to scale, maybe they all have a flat number plus a scaling rolled number (so something like RFBC gets 6+d6 per 5 but a mortar team only gets 0 + d3 per 5 because it's a much smaller explosion. Blast weapons were formally the go to for hordes and now they are almost universally bad at it.

Or d6 per 5 but with a cap based on the weapon. So blast 5 fires as a heavy weapon but caps at 5d6 shots for something massive. Smaller stuff could be blast 1 for just d6, et cetera.

Edited by Tyriks, 25 February 2018 - 08:33 PM.


#279
Stercus

Stercus

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,424 posts
  • Location:UK
My main thought on balancing 40k is, well, why bother?
Not balancing it has served GW very well for 20+ years and frankly, if it was a perfectly balanced and nuanced system what would we all argue and debate on here ad nauseum?
Broadly speaking, for all it’s flaws, we all enjoy and participate in this hobby and I don’t think mending it would change that. Would perfect balance and equality between factions really increase your enjoyment that much? I’m not so sure. Yes, the napoleonic wars might have been fairer if the Helvetic republic had real counters to the Austrian-Hungarian empire, but that wasn’t how the situation existed. Maybe, the imbalance in the 40k rulesets simply reflects reality in that not all factions are equal in genuine conflict.
Sometimes if ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Sometimes, even if it is a bit broke, don’t fix it anyway.
  • TwinOcted likes this

<p>gallery_48988_6285_50857.png
My thread of things:
http://www.bolterand...lds-some-stuff/

 

WIP Index Astartes Articles:

  Gatekeepers: http://www.bolterand...pers/?p=4192488

  Harvesters: http://www.bolterand...ters/?p=4192489

  Sons of Aetius: http://www.bolterand...tius/?p=4192491

 

Stercus percussit molendinum ad


#280
Tyriks

Tyriks

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,115 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Would perfect balance and equality between factions really increase your enjoyment that much?

Has any post in this thread shot for "perfect balance and equality?"  No.  We are aiming to get closer.  And yes, that would make the hobby more enjoyable for me.  By a large margin.  



#281
Lord_Caerolion

Lord_Caerolion

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,535 posts
  • Faction: Lamenters

I also like that idea, doesn't sound too punishing but is significant, and is very thematic. I think you'd need to be careful with it though. I'm imagining an inquisitor warlord in an imperium detachment allowing regular command point use to other more specialised detachments because they all have the imperium key word.

It'd also be a bit weird with the Ad Mech stratagems that target Knights.

 

An Imperium Detachment wouldn't allow any army-specific stratagems though, as they require a Blood Angels Detachment, etc, in order to be used. It could be done that an Inquisitor has a rule that it allows all Imperial detachments to ignore this rule. So you could have a Blood Angels Detachment, with an Inquisitor leading in an Imperial Detachment, and the Blood Angels could use their Stratagems at normal cost, rather than having to pay +1 CP.

 

To be honest, I just don't want to see "only the Warlords Detachment can use stratagems", as otherwise the allied Space Marines decide to keep all their scanners at home, etc.


"And then Horus landed on the Moon, which looked like the moon. Funny that, isn't it?"


You're hired.


#282
Zodd1888

Zodd1888

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 703 posts


Super simple. I like it.

Edit: Solves CP/Strategem issue. Doesn't solve Elite/Horde issue.

That is a larger issue all together.

Certainly like the idea of taxing however it may be that to some extent I wonder its effectiveness really. If we really are worried about CP spam, then taxing 1 CP isn't going to stop too much silliness as after all we have stated they have plenty to go around. I would push a harder tax, possibly a multiplier rather than addition. After all, takes a lot for some standard Imperial Guard commander to call in an orbital bombardment or the like. It means bigger stratagems become stupidly expensive and thus aren't available outside of the intended army while smaller stratagems can be used but not heavily.

In terms of Horde vs. Elite, it is an issue that just seems to be an issue whole unto itself. In terms of design, I find it annoying that large blast weapons really do not cut the mustard vs. horde when they really should. This comes around to how the random shots application has been relatively good in some regards and terrible in others. Good in making the game go faster and reduce arguments over false placement of the template because of parallax disagreements and also stops people wasting time over "I'm allowed to have them 2" apart thank you" whenever blast did appear. As it stands, blast doesn't do nearly enough to thin out hordes and those weapons need serious buffs or price drops, one or the other because some a stupidly priced.
It'd be putting a dent in the issue without blowing up the game, IMO.

If you were going to be silly and run a double brigade soup with a metric bajillion CP you've implemented a tax. Breaks down to a 100%/50%/33% increase in 1/2/3 CP strategems in their economy. That's impactful.

Though I think we're both of same mind for the most part on both topics.

Edited by Zodd1888, 26 February 2018 - 12:37 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users