PDA

View Full Version : How I would like to see codexs done.



Stonerkid655321
26-01-2008, 19:09
Hi. Upon reading the nex ork codex I was like WOW! There troops are incredably cheap, im going to take bucketfulls of them with a few support units to cover there weaknesses and perform specalist roles in the army such as getting objectives on the last turn, rushing forward to threten shooty units, take down skimmers etc.

It then dawned on me that this is actually the way you should(in my opinuion) go about making a army. A lot of basic troop choices with a few other selevted units for support. I think a lot of people would prefer to see people useing these types of armys in prefrence to say 10 basic guys with score cards and a army made up of elite/heavy support/fast attack. Troops are ment to be the core of the army, ie the army would not survive without them.
This I think can be done by making all troop choices very cheap, cheaper than you should think they should be, but without being able to do every type of ballelfield role. Thus people will want to take a lot of them, but still need the specalist elite/FA/HS units to perform the things that the basic troops cant.

A army that works good like this is Tyranids. Spine gaunts are tremendasly cheap at 5 points a model, you can have a huge amount of them for very little points. However they need the support of other units to work well, eg synapse creatures for leadership, carnifixes for shooting down tanks, hive tyrants and geenstellers for killing tough things in combat.

Sisters of battle and guard also work this way imo. However their troops are just not cheap enough. A guardsman is not equal to a ork and 2.5 guardsmen are not equal to a marine. Why not make guardsmen 4 points a model and sisters 8? IG and wichunters would now actually stand a chance of winning games(I am talking about against competitive tournament armys like at the UKGT).

I really think that by making the troops of all armys cheaper it will lead to more balance in competitive armys.

Kulgur
26-01-2008, 19:18
I just liked how they went back to the method of: section with stats, rules and fluff, and seperate section with points values, options and stats

xibo
26-01-2008, 19:23
because of the sheer overpresence of lascannons, assault cannons, plas*, assault cannons, missile launchers, assault cannons, plas*, assault cannons and duh... did i mention assault cannons and plasguns(?) ... marine's don't get to make their safe often enough and therefore should it be MEQ[especially necrons who are just waaay too expensive] who need a drop or at least freebees like grenades and pistol+ccw for everyone to make up for that :O

Now on a serious side: IMO all races other then eldar ( and that is mostly for the fact aspects go into elites and fast attack ) should base their army on 90%+ of the models into troops. There is however no hope for this to be so for armies other then orks, guard, nids and necrons, as in the other codices most of the time there's a unit in elite, fast attack or heavy support that does exactly the same thing as a troop choice just better ( e.g. blue jetpacked power armours without jetpacks still have free grenades for no point charge and can take melta charges, 2 assault weapons and bp+ccw while troop marines cannot )...

Archangel_Ruined
26-01-2008, 19:35
I like the emphasis on troops, it is obviously a good thing, and for the most I like the new codex system. What I don't like is the lack of wargear and weapons choices, I want to pick what my commander takes from an armory, not a tick list either or system. I might like a combi melta AND a plasma pistol, or whatever else I feel like for that matter. I know it makes things easier for beginners and prevents crusty vet power gamers abusing the lists at tournaments, but I'm a crusty vet and I like the flexibility that every list since rogue trader has offered characters. The sergeant upgrade options also curb your ability to make a really fluffy army with all sergeants having whatever bizarre wargear your background dictates, and it isn't like wargear was free to begin with.

Lord Obsidianus
26-01-2008, 19:35
I like the way GW is moving with this.

The simple way to make people take more troops is to make the troops worth taking.

Orks the troops are cheap enough to be taken in a feasible hoard army, Eldar have Dire avengers who are now worthwhile in a list.

The idea of troops that are actually worth taking is the solution for the problem of people not taking them, not modifying the rules like the 5th ed rumors are saying.

Templar Ben
26-01-2008, 19:39
How about having the points cost accurately reflect the unit? If the only valid choices are in elite, heavy support, or fast attack then that is what people are going to take. Saying that someone must take 2 crappy troops ends up with people taking 2 crappy troops.

lanrak
26-01-2008, 20:35
Hi Templar Ben.
Do you know what you are asking for?
You want the artists in the GW studio to use vulgar methods like 'mathematics and logic' to assign reasonable accurate comparative PVs ...

How very dare you...:eek:

Its thier own personal games system they develop for themselves to play,if they understand it and enjoy it so should you.

I mean its not like they charge you money for the codexes is it?:angel:

I totaly agree if the devs did thier job 'properley', ALL possible army selections would be equaly viable.

For those that say 'this cannot be done', just look at several quality NON GW wargames ...

biccat
26-01-2008, 20:43
How about having the points cost accurately reflect the unit? If the only valid choices are in elite, heavy support, or fast attack then that is what people are going to take. Saying that someone must take 2 crappy troops ends up with people taking 2 crappy troops.
What army has crappy troops? Every army I know of has troops that do very well in their role.

Sometimes players play lists where they avoid the benefit of their troops (ass cannon marines, gun line chaos), or they value other choices too highly, but that's hardly a problem with the troops choice.

ankara halla
26-01-2008, 21:27
What army has crappy troops? Every army I know of has troops that do very well in their role.

Sometimes players play lists where they avoid the benefit of their troops (ass cannon marines, gun line chaos), or they value other choices too highly, but that's hardly a problem with the troops choice.

Which is why you see so many high ranking vanilla&chaos_marine/eldar/tau/nid/etc. GT armies with maxed out troops... riiight.

I'm sorry to say it, but it's the competitive games and lists where the balances and relative worth of choises are to be found out. It sadly is so that with most armies the troop choises don't cut it points/performance wise when compared to the rest of the choises.

And yeah sure, one can build a fairly competitive army that's not built around the most powerful choises, and in certain situations said army might even performe better than it's optimized variant, but it does not change the point one bit.
Rarely do troops offer value for points when compared to the other choises in any codex. Now that changes with 5th ed. and it's a good thing, but I'm with Templar Ben here. I'd rather have seen balanced (internally and compared to others) codex's first.

xibo
26-01-2008, 21:30
What army has crappy troops? Every army I know of has troops that do very well in their role.
In which case i think {firewarriors, guardsmen, defender guardians, conscripts} role is dying:
1. Firewarriors: while everyone is crying cheese because their gun wounds marines on 3+ and has 6" more range then boltguns, firewarriors have the third-worst statline ( after grots and conscripts ) in the game and are not especially cheap either
2. guardsmen: the arguably ( only the shuriken crappapult can compete with the lasgun in terms of crappiness ) worst gun on a unit that is supposed to be shooty and pay more points for heavy weapons then anyone else
3. guardian defenders: the arguably ( only lasgun ... ) worst gun in the game on a unit that is supposed to be shooty, and the fact their heavy weapon which isn't cheap either counts is assault for them makes them be same expensive as IG veterans...
4. conscripts: well their purpose is dying by causing enough target priority checks or having an enemy accidently consolidating into the wrong unit ... or the guard player thinks his conscripts are bored of shooting and charges with them

while firewarriors can FoF ( <- haven't seen it beeing done since two years soon ) their poor BS and the fact *anything* in 40k has T4 and AS3+ makes FoF not look that powerfull any more ( not to say pathetic ), while crisis jsj is more annoying to the enemy and ALOT more effective in causing casualties.
eldar guardians *sometimes* manage to hit something, but they rarely make their points back in any other means as to hold some objective.

I can't tell about gaunts, but unless you field huge units of them they don't cause much damage in combat - and if you field a huge unit the enemy will easily reduce it to be alot smaller before it reaches their lines.

SoBs are fine.
DE are fine.
Inquisational Stormtroopers are overpriced.
(Chaos) Marines are the best basic unit, mostly because they are disgustingly cheap, hands down. Noone uses them in masses though.
Necrons. Marines that stand up again for +3 points but don't have vets with powerfists in every squad... nevertheless a candidate for the best basic unit
Eldar troops other then guardians are fine, too.
Greyknights are __fine ( they would be fine if not cheap if marines and necrons would be reasonably priced ).
Traitors are __fine ( they are too expensive for their abilities, due to the fact they are abstracted from IG guardsmen which are too expensive too )
Mutants are fine.
Did I forget anyone?

The UnNamed One
26-01-2008, 21:52
Well GW seems to be trying to get troop heavy armys if the rumors are true.
I cant remember the rumor exactly but i think its only troop units that are at half strength or more are the only scoring units.

rintinglen
26-01-2008, 22:17
Put me down as one of the "I want the armory crowd."
If my master, Iva Goodun, wants to carry a power sword and a thunderhammer, I ought to have the right to equip him that way. I like perusing the list and buying what I want, not what others think I should want.
I would prefer all the relevant rules, points costs, fluff, and whatever for each unit all in one place. I don't like the concept of separate pages or sections.

Epicenter
26-01-2008, 22:26
Actually, in my experience, Tau players despise Fire Warriors because they don't get organic (in-unit) heavy / special weapons choices. Seeker Missiles are okay, but Markerlights are expensive, immobile, and Seeker Missiles bug most Tau players because it's a cost-per-shot thing and a bit on the expensive side at that. The Pulse Rifle's strength is averaged out against FW's poor BS so that in terms of shooting, a Fire Warrior is basically as good at firing at a Space Marine as another Space Marine is. Fire Warriors are probably a touch overpriced, unfortunately, without something to make FWs more "shiny" dropping the cost of FWs will just mean more Crisis Suits and vehicles in a tau army, not more FWs.

The biggest thing that bugs me about the new Codex layout? I despise that I have to keep flipping back and forth in the Codex because the unit description and special rules are in the front, while the army list with the costs in the back. I hate that. A lot.

TheLionReturns
26-01-2008, 22:31
I'm sorry to say it, but it's the competitive games and lists where the balances and relative worth of choises are to be found out. It sadly is so that with most armies the troop choises don't cut it points/performance wise when compared to the rest of the choises.


I really don't think GW should be influenced by trying to limit the possibility of powergaming to try and make tournaments balanced and interesting. I've always felt it is better to let the gamers self-police in a way. If you insist on looking for every powerful combination and finding every loophole you'll either run out of opponents fast or find those of a similar mindset. I would much rather GW focuses on building variety into lists and the ability to customise. I think the most important thing is to try to ensure that no choices in codexes are impossible to field without seriously handicapping yourself. The focus, if you will, should be on making all options viable rather than looking to restrict the list so certain powerful combinations cant be taken (ie nerfing the powerful units by restricting them).

With this in mind I think that some tweaks to the troops may be needed but not many. The most important thing would seem to be having customisable troop choices or a variety of different choices so that you can fulfill different roles from your troops selections. The combat squadding ability in codex DA is a welcome return for me and one that adds a new dimension/brings back a former dimension to tactical squads. Also the ability to take ravenwing or deathwing as troops also helps with this. Rangers, Jetbikes and even Wraithguard (if you take enough) as troops brings good variety to the Eldar list. It would have been interesting to see the respective aspect warriors become troops if you take a phoenix lord but sadly GW didn't take this step.

Imperial guard could have different troops choices depending on the Regiment you use. Cadians as now whilst Harakoni Warhawks could have stormtroopers in valkyries as troops for example. There could also be options for tank companies, or heavy weapons platoons dominated lists.

Yes balance can be an issue and the more options there are the harder to keep balance. However, I really believe that balance is only an issue if gamers let it by taking abusive lists against those who do not game this way. I would far rather GW tackled balance issues by introducing a variety of missions with victory conditions that forced the tactical part of gaming into the actual game itself rather than list design.

Stonerkid655321
26-01-2008, 22:51
Well GW seems to be trying to get troop heavy armys if the rumors are true.
I cant remember the rumor exactly but i think its only troop units that are at half strength or more are the only scoring units.

That would be stupid. The game would be all about hideing and protecting your own basic troops whale useing your now expendable HQ and elite units to kill his basic troops.

Maby making it only be Infantry that are scoreing. Thus tanks become support rather than making up the army itself, and we do not see armys constantly including 3 of the best HS tanks, ie 3 falcons, 3 predators, 3 hammerheads, 3 russes/basalisks.

Stonerkid655321
26-01-2008, 22:52
Put me down as one of the "I want the armory crowd."
If my master, Iva Goodun, wants to carry a power sword and a thunderhammer, I ought to have the right to equip him that way. I like perusing the list and buying what I want, not what others think I should want.
I would prefer all the relevant rules, points costs, fluff, and whatever for each unit all in one place. I don't like the concept of separate pages or sections.

I second that.

ankara halla
26-01-2008, 22:55
I really don't think GW should be influenced by trying to limit the possibility of powergaming to try and make tournaments balanced and interesting. I've always felt it is better to let the gamers self-police in a way.

Personally, I'd rather have GW focus on making balanced codexes (internally and externally) and have players "self-police" themself to suit their setting. Wait, that's basically what you said. I'd say we agree, except for the part of the focus from GW.


If you insist on looking for every powerful combination and finding every loophole you'll either run out of opponents fast or find those of a similar mindset.

Very true. The point is there shouldn't be powerful combinations that are far more viable than their supposed alternatives.


I would much rather GW focuses on building variety into lists and the ability to customise.

I honestly can't see why both balance and variety couldn't be done at the same time. Others have done. In other systems GW has also done it.


I think the most important thing is to try to ensure that no choices in codexes are impossible to field without seriously handicapping yourself.

I don't think anyone would disagree here.


The focus, if you will, should be on making all options viable rather than looking to restrict the list so certain powerful combinations cant be taken (ie nerfing the powerful units by restricting them).

Yes! GW should focus on balancing the codexes! Internally and externally. I guess we agree on the focus afterall.


Yes balance can be an issue and the more options there are the harder to keep balance. However, I really believe that balance is only an issue if gamers let it by taking abusive lists against those who do not game this way. I would far rather GW tackled balance issues by introducing a variety of missions with victory conditions that forced the tactical part of gaming into the actual game itself rather than list design.

The point is that list balance shouldn't be an issue to begin with. All (okey, at least most) options should be balanced to begin with. If players can tilt game balance by choosing certain options over others then that's the problem. That's where GW should focus design wise.

And I really don't buy that "options make balancing more difficult" line that many seem to support. Sure, it makes it a tad bit more difficult, but by no means is a balanced gaming system that offers planety of option unheard of in the realm of TTG.

AmBlam
26-01-2008, 23:35
IMO GW started out with SM as elites - then went on to make loads of other races who were all elite or elite-like and hence they became normal troopers. IG being the exception.

ankara halla
26-01-2008, 23:53
Yeah, when GW started out 40k the equilavent of an Eldar guardian/raider had a better profile than the equilavent of a tactical marine. Marines weren't elite (they originally had T3, Sv.4+ for starters) until moments before 2nd edition hit the shelves.

GW may have started out 3rd edition marine stat centered, but that's not how it was when "GW started out" as you put it. Even so, in 3rd ed. as in 4th a marine was/is a better than an average trooper. A tactical squad still is in some cases as efficient in a given task as is another races specialised unit.

TheLionReturns
27-01-2008, 00:02
I honestly can't see why both balance and variety couldn't be done at the same time. Others have done. In other systems GW has also done it.

The point is that list balance shouldn't be an issue to begin with. All (okey, at least most) options should be balanced to begin with. If players can tilt game balance by choosing certain options over others then that's the problem. That's where GW should focus design wise.

And I really don't buy that "options make balancing more difficult" line that many seem to support. Sure, it makes it a tad bit more difficult, but by no means is a balanced gaming system that offers planety of option unheard of in the realm of TTG.

I think my main thought is that I would like GW try to make the weaker units viable, and spend time focusing on them rather than trying to work out all of the potential powerful combinations and limit them. I see an approach of encouraging the use of alternatives by giving them a role rather than nerfing the obvious choices. It is a subtle change of focus but one I feel preserves variety. I haven't read the leaked 5th edition rules but I seem to remember reading something about only troops being scoring units. This goes some way to achieving this I think. I sometimes get the impression that GW's method of balancing in the past has been to limit choices and simplify the system as a result.

I also agree that variety and balance aren't mutually exclusive. I do however, think that it is harder with more variety. Playtesting takes longer and there are more combinations to consider against eachother. I'm not sure GW have the development resources to do it this way. There is also a time factor. I think GW's business plan is to have a fast turnaround of new rules and accompanying models to maintain interest. Whether this is a necessary or even effective strategy is largely irrelevant. The important thing is that it does appear to be the strategy.

I would like to see GW really take their time to develop a good ruleset (they have done it with EPIC Armageddon and Bloodbowl) and gather feedback from gamers. They should use this feedback to tweak any wording for clarity but essentially stick with one set of rules. I can't help but think that achieving balance will be easier if there is a long term stable set of rules. I think adding options for variety once you have an established and stable ruleset is the best way to get variety and balance. Repeated new editions of the core games just rush the development process for the specific armies and cause seeming lack of resources I mentioned above.

Stonerkid655321
27-01-2008, 01:28
I really don't think GW should be influenced by trying to limit the possibility of powergaming to try and make tournaments balanced and interesting. I've always felt it is better to let the gamers self-police in a way.

This cant happen since everyone has different opinuions.

Part of the fun of GW games is trying out different units and finding out which units work best, which can be included in our tactics etc. Thus all need to be balanced soas to make this worthwhile.
I personelly cannot find the idea of simply taking a random selection of units without thinking about their use then just rolling dice very fun. I want to have to consider different unit combinations and how they would work in my tactics. If it turns out that a small amount of units are infact the only viable options then GW have messed up and are not doing what they are being paid to do.

I am not asking GW to think of 40K as chess with nicer models. I am asking them to make rules that can be played without the need for interpretation, missions that are balanced, and units whose effectivness reflects their points cost. At the moment I think they have it almost spot on, however it could be better.

Imperialis_Dominatus
27-01-2008, 07:05
My own list is centered on troops. I've got four identical all-purpose squads that work well against the vast majority of what the enemy has to throw at me. My HQ flies around with an assaulty unit destroying basic troops choices and vehicles, my troops swamp the enemy assault specialists and use their transports as mobile cover/terrain if they're not in them, and I have some Terminators in reserve who teleport in to bolster the line where it's needed. Icons all around to ensure they land where they're wanted.

I have a 1750 list with 1080 in troops, and it's done fairly well so far. I haven't gotten as many games as I'd like with it but I'm confident that in any game where there's the standard 25% terrain on the board, whatever the mission, I can accomplish it.

But I'm Chaos. Our troops are awesomely incredible winnars. :evilgrin:

Luckywallace
27-01-2008, 10:12
Orks and Chaos codex books made an awesome step towards making the basic "Troops" really worth taking.

Ork Boyz are a bargain at 6 points. I take loads of them. While Chaos Marines are still 15 they are now armed to the teeth (bolters, bolt pistols AND ccw). It's not just "fluffy" to take lots of troops in these armies... their troops are really good value for points!

Dark Angels/Blood Angels are not too bad either, with their bolt pistols and combat squad rules.

Here is a vague stab at what I think some other 'troops' should be...

Space Marines: Keep at 15 points. Give them bolt pistols and combat squads rules. Keep the heavy weapon to squads of 10 (like DA/BA).

Imperial Guard: Drop them down to 5 points. No way a Guard is the value of an Ork. Maybe make heavy/special weapons a touch cheaper.

Sisters of Battle: Not bad as they are. Maybe 10 points each would be a little fairer in light of the "new" orks and "new" marines.

Grey Knights: Hmm... tough call. They are nasty and their points should reflect this. I'd say Inquisitorial Stormtroopers should maybe drop in price a bit (9pts each?).

Necrons: Good value as they are. If they get the rumoured "Feel no pain" instead of WWB then they may be even better still. No need for more tricks with the 'crons, 18 points is a bargain.
Flayed ones as troops would be interesting (they could do with being cheaper the old flayed ones).

Tau: Fire Warriors could do with being a bit cheaper or better shots. Kroot are good value as they are.

Tyranids: Pretty good as they are I would say. Good old Spinegaunts - dirt cheap.

Eldar & Dark Eldar: I do not feel quite qualified to comment on these, though I know a lot of people think Guardians are under-powered.

Lord Damocles
27-01-2008, 10:16
Put me down as one of the "I want the armory crowd." If my master, Iva Goodun, wants to carry a power sword and a thunderhammer, I ought to have the right to equip him that way. I like perusing the list and buying what I want, not what others think I should want.
I would prefer all the relevant rules, points costs, fluff, and whatever for each unit all in one place. I don't like the concept of separate pages or sections.

Thirded.:mad:

eyeslikethunder
27-01-2008, 10:54
The problem as i see it is that each new edition fixes problems created by the codexes taking something good in the new rules and breaking it rather than using the codexes to fix the problem.


its not that the skimmer rules that are broken its the skimmer upgrades that make them
invulnerable. so they make all skimmers worse rather than the broken upgrades.

the 3rd ed changes where the same

I do like the new codexes though they put more emphasis(give you ones that are worth while) on the troop choices. The thing that worries me is the powerfist. It was a troops equaliser weapon that gave you a chance against the uber heroes, MC and vehicles. It was possible to deny people their PF attacks through clever casualty removal.

MadJackMcJack
27-01-2008, 14:46
Personally, I've always gone with lots of troops anyway. My old Tau army had a core of 3-4 full Fire Warrior squads and my Orks always run with at least 2 full mobs (which, with the points drop, will almost certainly be joined by another once I finish the cool stuff like trukks and bikers). Plus even my warhammer armies are troop-heavy, with lots and lots of Boyz, night gobbos and Dwarf warriors filling the roster. I just really like the idea of lots and lots of bodies on the field. True, the painting and setting-up is a pain, but so worth it to see an endless wave of green swamp an enemy. When they aren't all shot to hell. I'm looking at you Tau!


No way a Guard is the value of an Ork.

*informs a nearby Commisar of possible heretical thoughts*

Stonerkid655321
27-01-2008, 18:31
Personally, I've always gone with lots of troops anyway. My old Tau army had a core of 3-4 full Fire Warrior squads and my Orks always run with at least 2 full mobs (which, with the points drop, will almost certainly be joined by another once I finish the cool stuff like trukks and bikers). Plus even my warhammer armies are troop-heavy, with lots and lots of Boyz, night gobbos and Dwarf warriors filling the roster. I just really like the idea of lots and lots of bodies on the field. True, the painting and setting-up is a pain, but so worth it to see an endless wave of green swamp an enemy. When they aren't all shot to hell. I'm looking at you Tau!



*informs a nearby Commisar of possible heretical thoughts*

LOL you are funny.

However it is the unfortunate case that the ultraa competitive tau armys do not include lots of firewarriors.

TheMav80
27-01-2008, 20:12
I've never found Firewarriors to be all that great, unless you give them a Devilfish. Which just makes the squad more expensive, which means you have to take less.

I played with a static firing line of FW and Pathfinders when I first started. It would go great for about two turns...then the enemy would hit my lines and i'd crumple like a wet paper sack.

MadJackMcJack
27-01-2008, 22:39
Well, I didn't say it was effective, just that I did it. Why do you think I no longer have my Tau army? I'm in no way interested in a fully mech army (well, maybe Speed Freaks, but they're Orky, so hey), and a footslogging Tau force sucks. Just wasn't fun (plus the models don't inspire me like Orks do).