Working on some possible comp/rules fixes

[Grand Master Steve]

My thoughts is a group from both BG locations should sit down and goth rough every codex and we house rule things. We play test he crap out of it and share with the rest of the comunnity. Instead of nit picking and complaining and looking for that "silver bullet" that will fix all the problems.

[Loranus]

Bring back Squats will fix everything.

[Chase]

It's very difficult to have an open discussion about this sort of thing.  So many people play the game at different levels, in different ways, and for different reasons.  Everyone is under the impression that they probably have the right idea and are probably considering most things.  Everyone has a voice, everyone wants to be heard.  blah blah blah.

I'm a fan of top down design.  Small groups of people playing and thinking about the game at the highest level doing lots of math, looking at tons of data, tweaking, changing, and inventing things that will "tickle down" to the rest of the players, customers, and/or community.

Almost every game that I can think of that is played competitively by lots of people has this sort of thing in place.  We even see shades of it in the 40k community where the TOs behind some of the larger GTs work with their people / clubs to design rules for their events.

It's plainly obvious at this point that 40k 6th Edition is...  Not that game anymore.  It's fun and cool to play when you're playing with someone who's on the same page (HEY THERE THURSDAY 40K), but it's probably not the best game in the world right now from a competitive standpoint.

Times are changing.  The competitive circles will figure out what's best for them.  I think the models are still the best in the business.  The story that surrounds the game is awesome.  Most people can still have fun playing it for the exact reasons they did when they first got involved.  For the people that need a tabletop miniatures game that prioritizes high level competition, there are other options out there and I'd be happy to talk about them somewhere else (email, in store, or whatever).

[Mike_k]

Thanks for not ever discussing the actual topic and derailing everything.


Reroll saves:
2+ = 2+ 5+ on the 2nd roll this makes the reroll equivalent to an always on feel no pain even against double strength.  It turns a 1/36 probability into durable but much more manageable save
3+ = 3+ 4+ on the 2nd roll If you didnt alter 3+ rerolls they would be better than 2+ and if you have run into crusaders with rerolls a 3+ reroll is shocking durable, obnoxiuos and unfun to deal with

Unit/army changes:
1 IC per unit (will adjust for IG, sisters and anything else that this breaks) Fixes screamer, flamer, drone, pack, DCA bombs, council, cent star, ovessa star.  Helps make standard HQ+ units a bit more viable
Battle Brothers cant join allied units Further fixes retarded deathstar combos, units getting buffs they shouldn't have etc
IC's can never carry the relic ever Ovessa grabbing the relic, CM's with the relic etc.  Its just not a smart thing to allow

Any reroll to hit is only reroll of 1's whether Twin linked, prescienced, etc.  Too many armies have access to twin linking methods and several have little to none.  When you shoot 24 TL shots at BS 3 on average you will end up with 19-22 hits (i believe).

[Sir_Prometheus]

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I do disagree on the specifics.  Generally speaking, I'd like to keep any changes simple -- making a rule, like the IC one, that you then have to carve exemptions for is complicated.  There's also a lot of units in which it's perfectly fine to have multiple ICs in one unit, and things like the farsight "the 8" (which is not at all broken, but cool as hell) practically demand it.

Similarly, your re-roll rules become a little hard to remember.  It seems better to just say "no rerolling invo saves" or something like I suggested, where fortune is altered, since that's where most of the re-rolls come from. 

I also don't know that ICs grabbing relics is a big problem.  O'Vesa star is a problem, but it's a problem whether it can grab the objective or not (also, O'Vesa usually isn't scoring, anyway).

[AstartesXXVI]

Speaking strictly as an outsider, here is what this thread (and all discussions like it) look like to me:

"[Thing that is hard to beat for my army] would be much better if it were [significantly worse in a way benefiting my army]. Everyone knows [Things that is hard to beat for my army] is the problem!"

Ironically, Strength D actually solves a lot of these problems (Wave Serpents, Riptides, 2++ Daemons, etc.).

I think it is important to look at what the game is as a whole. Is there a problem with 2++ re-rollables everywhere? Is it even that much of a problem (it is, after all, for one unit on one turn). Until you establish the standard you can't establish the limitations, after all.

[andalucien]

This thread is exhibit A of why it's challenging for community-driven change to take root   It's much easier for a dictator with implied authority (like, GW) to do it.   Don't give up Mike & friends!!!  I definitely like the adjustments you posted.  I think a lot more needs to be done (especially in the vein of CLARIFICATIONS of rules, not just rebalancing) but in and of themselves these changes seem good.

[andalucien]

Actually, I want to amend my last statement...

I don't think that the change to twin-linking is necessary.  Re-rolling saves is a problem because it can divide the amount of damage you take by 6...  when that's applied to a unit which was ALREADY only taking 1 in 6 wounds, it leads to an unkillable unit, which just isn't fun.    On the other hand, twin linking a gun can never even double the output of the gun (and it only even approaches doubling when you're twin-linking snap shots, which were not hitting much anyway).  Your change to twin-linking only affects BS4 shots by like 10%.  Rerolling hits just doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact on the game as re-rolling saves does, so there's no need to nerf it.

[Sir_Prometheus]

"[Thing that is hard to beat for my army] would be much better if it were [significantly worse in a way benefiting my army]. Everyone knows [Things that is hard to beat for my army] is the problem!"

Yes, that is a thing that happens, sure.  But it's pretty clear that there is an actual problem going on here, where if you want to really want to compete at the top tables at GT's you really need to bring some sort of crazy unkillable deathstar.  The only guy I've seen do well lately without one is Todd Silbur. 

I think it is important to look at what the game is as a whole. Is there a problem with 2++ re-rollables everywhere?

Yes, absolutely.  Or more generally, 2+ armor & cover saves rerolled and invo saves of any kind.  Even beast pack with a simple 4++ rerolled has proven nearly unbeatable. 

Ironically, Strength D actually solves a lot of these problems (Wave Serpents, Riptides, 2++ Daemons, etc.).

Sure.  But it also makes any kind of elite unit completely unplayable.  It also removes a great deal of the tactical nature of the game, because cover no longer matters, range and positioning very often no longer matter.  You're just picking entire units up off the board.  That's not fun. 

Actually, I want to amend my last statement...

I don't think that the change to twin-linking is necessary.  Re-rolling saves is a problem because it can divide the amount of damage you take by 6...  when that's applied to a unit which was ALREADY only taking 1 in 6 wounds, it leads to an unkillable unit, which just isn't fun.    On the other hand, twin linking a gun can never even double the output of the gun (and it only even approaches doubling when you're twin-linking snap shots, which were not hitting much anyway).  Your change to twin-linking only affects BS4 shots by like 10%.  Rerolling hits just doesn't have anywhere near as much of an impact on the game as re-rolling saves does, so there's no need to nerf it.

I concur. 

[Grimwulfe]

I like the reroll for invul.  I think however the 2++ 4++ is the way to go. It should be strong but not over bearing.

The IC rule I dont think is needed for the most part.  Getting rid of BB or allies in general would go a long way into fixing these issues.

And I agree with Andulucian on the twin linked rules they dont need changing for the most part.

Overall though I agree fixes need to be made but I agree with Mike that we should be buffing armies not nerfing others.

[AstartesXXVI]

Sure.  But it also makes any kind of elite unit completely unplayable.  It also removes a great deal of the tactical nature of the game, because cover no longer matters, range and positioning very often no longer matter.  You're just picking entire units up off the board.  That's not fun. 

I agree that it's not fun for the reasons mentioned. Unfortunately, if GW considers these things part of the core game, there will only be more insane stuff that only levels off when confronted with Strength D.

On the bright side, for all we know, the 7th edition update is going to fix all of this with one sentence in the rules for applying modifiers to things, saying something like "Any save of 2+ may not be re-rolled for any reason." Or perhaps, god willing, there will be a way to reduce saves rather than just trying to spam-overwhelm them into rolling 1s.

As for the current proposals, it really won't be hard to just say on a per event basis,

"All re-rolled cover or invulnerable saves during this event suffer a -2 modifier"
"Any Battle Brother allies count as allies of convenience for this event."

You could even give a little fluffy name to each of these rules and make them a standard.

[Tharcil]

Hello BG 40k'ers.

Working on some potential comp/rules fixes to tune 40k and spread the balance out some.  Have some initial ideas targeted at the really difficult to handle things like 2+ rerollable saves and super mega deathstars.

We are aware that the 1 IC change will hurt IG/sisters and would probably make an exemptions list for armies/units/IC's excluded from this list.

Tell us what this list of changes breaks or hinders into non play-ability or even just makes worse than it already is.

Also some armies have plenty of ways to get rerolls to shooting/hits and some armies dont.  Some units with lots of twin linking like missilesides instantly invalidate units like ork boys.  Looking to tune twin linking, prescience etc to dial that back some.

Reroll saves:
2+ = 2+ 5+ on the 2nd roll
3+ = 3+ 4+ on the 2nd roll

Unit/army changes:
1 IC per unit (will adjust for IG, sisters and anything else that this breaks)
Battle Brothers cant join allied units
IC's can never carry the relic ever

Any reroll to hit is only reroll of 1's whether Twin linked, prescienced, etc

My opinions are based off an assumption that escalation and stronghold are not allowed with these rules.  I think 2+ rerollable is moot with D weapons around so I'm only going to get into what I feel is appropriate for competitive play that disallows what I consider to be silly/fun books.

I like the proposed rule change for re-roll to armor saves as they are specific in value, which is why I do not like the suggested re-roll to twin linked hits.  As has already been pointed out, armies that are already good at shooting take a minor hit, while those with lower BS take a much bigger percentage hit...poor poor orcsies!

I disagree with the # of IC in a unit restriction as well.  Small combos are great and fun and not overpowered.  Not unreasonable having a chaplain and a captain in the same unit and as noted for some armies it can ruin the flavor.  I think not allowing them to connect across detachments is a better idea.  I think this is trying to fix the whole multiple riptide commander bomb thing.  I think this is an example where things should be addressed specifically rather than through changing the mechanics of the game.  Make it so that Riptides are (insert classification that allows for limited attaching of IC's or none at all here).  I still don't understand the rule perfectly enough to suggest an exact loophole free alternative.

I very much like that this is a very specific conversation about some very specific rules and hope we can keep that focus.  I thinks this is really productive for us as a community to get a feel for where this should be going for competitive play. 

[Moosifer]

Hi my name is Rick James.  I currently own/play necrons and demons.  I used to be at almost every event that BG put on, but have been slowly disliking the game and no longer attend much of anything sans doubles events.  The "comp" system Mike has thrown together might "nerf" armies of some of the regulars on the boards, but it's intention is to balance out the game for everyone.  We ALL have seen what this game has turned into and instead of bickering like children (looking at Matt and Rob here guys) how about we start assessing topics like this with the idea that we are doing it for the the health of the game?

[Thefallen]

Personally i think most of the imbalances could be fixed in the core rule book. Like changing furious charge back to what it was in 5th edition +1S & +1I. A change like this gives a boost to assault armies with out screwing over any other armies.

[Sir_Prometheus]

We ALL have seen what this game has turned into and instead of bickering like children (looking at Matt and Rob here guys)

Thanks, buddy.  I really appreciate how you were going out of your way to avoid starting any fights, there.