What do you think and why?

When i see for example an AM player who has no struggle getting 12-15 CP at the start of a 2000p game. And a Custodes player who has maybe 6-9 CP. I wonder is fair shouldnt they have the same number? and if you factor in that an AM player will get porbably another 6-10 CP during the game it gets worse.

I voted that there is a big difference between the codexes when it comes to how powerful their CP are.

I definitely think that not all codexes are created equal when it comes to stratagems.

The problem begins when you have an army like Guard, with adequate but fairly mediocre stratagems, becoming a CP battery for armies like Custodes, who have some pretty badass stratagems!

Some codexes barely use or need CP. Daemons use about 7 CP on average before the game starts.

I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

It's fine that some armies generate more command points but this should be factored into the power of their stratagems. It's not. I mean in the case of AM - they generate the easiest AND have some of the best stratagems too.

Command point regurgitation needs to die a horrible death also - plus command points should also stay with the detachment that generated them.

Maybe a good solution for problems with elite army command point generation (custodes/GK) maybe have all of their really expensive HQ's generate additional command points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

It's fine that some armies generate more command points but this should be factored into the power of their stratagems. It's not. I mean in the case of AM - they generate the easiest AND have some of the best stratagems too.

Command point regurgitation needs to die a horrible death also - plus command points should also stay with the detachment that generated them.

Maybe a good solution for problems with elite army command point generation (custodes/GK) maybe have all of their really expensive HQ's generate additional command points.

Agreed on the regeneration - CP regeneration is a bit dumb.

What AM stratagems do you think are "Best"?
The only ones I can think of are Crush Them! which is solidly atrocious unless used on a Baneblade, and Defensive Gunners which is ... also the same. Kinda okay, unless you use it on a Baneblade.

Pretty much 100% agree with Unit1126PLL. Some armies have some okay stratagems, with just one or two really good ones. Other armies have a ton of phenomenal stratagems. But all the armies use the same basic model for starting with a set number of stratagems, which means that some armies can throw around their stratagem weight a lot harder than others.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

It's fine that some armies generate more command points but this should be factored into the power of their stratagems. It's not. I mean in the case of AM - they generate the easiest AND have some of the best stratagems too.

Command point regurgitation needs to die a horrible death also - plus command points should also stay with the detachment that generated them.

Maybe a good solution for problems with elite army command point generation (custodes/GK) maybe have all of their really expensive HQ's generate additional command points.

Agreed on the regeneration - CP regeneration is a bit dumb.

What AM stratagems do you think are "Best"?
The only ones I can think of are Crush Them! which is solidly atrocious unless used on a Baneblade, and Defensive Gunners which is ... also the same. Kinda okay, unless you use it on a Baneblade.

Take cover is awesome - overlapping feilds of fire is amazing - crush them is crappy but hilarious. Plus there are a ton of little 1 pointers that are useful and they can afford to use like grenades strategem.

A lot of that depends on the build and stratagems in question. Often an IG army with gobs of CP cant use even half those it has over the course of a game. Often, because those units are individually rather weeny, they dont have as much effect as they can with other armies. Not always the case, but is a consideration.

That said, IG and Custodes are also something of a unique case, being as polar opposite as you can get, and IG in particular being built around hordes of units not just hordes of models. In previous editions, when army construction was much more restrictive, IG actually required special rules to fit in. Officers were part of command squads and couldnt be taken separately, and you could take a platoon command squad with six infantry squads and a unit of conscripts and multiple heavy and special weapons units all as a single Troops slot, while now that could be several detachments on its own.

However, as to the fundamental imbalance of different CP counts, I dont think we have good data on that, the usefulness of those CP's varies wildly depending on circumstances, and some armies are much more heavily built around them than others, and GW may want certain armies to have more or less, we dont really know.

EDIT: I definitely agree that there are issues with things like IG being used as a CP battery for other factions, Soup needs to get clamped down on hard.

meh, guard has no where near the powerful stratagems that are in some other books. I'd Rank them solidly behind (in no particular order) CSM, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Nids, 1000 Sons, Deathguard, Daemons. They are space marine levels of stratagem, but have a ton of CP. They are no where near the top in good stratagems. As Unit said, the problem is that they act as a battery (3 CP + regen) for basically every competitive imperium army.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

Command point regurgitation needs to die a horrible death also - plus command points should also stay with the detachment that generated them.

This 100%.

GW Needs to take a look at armies and how they generate CP. Elite armies should have *more* CP than others, not less. They have all these incredibly expensive Stratagems they can only ever use once, because they're starved for the very resource they need.

I guarantee I'd run Custodes without guard if I had enough goddamn CP to not need them.

Generally, I like the "concept" of CP regeneration (if not necessarily the implementation) as it potentially stretches CPs and Stratagems a bit more to later terms.

One of the worst aspect of CPs, IMO, is that they tend to make a game heavily loopsided towards the first turn even more so.

In a perfect world, CPs/Stratagem could've been a game design tool to do the opposite, mitigate the alpha-strike-emphasis of an IGO-UGO game like 40K and help armies (or what's left of them) power up towards the later turns to make them equally as important as the first and second one.

Ultimately, Command Points rewards you buying more models, so that’s why it’s there. ;-)

 Cephalobeard wrote:
GW Needs to take a look at armies and how they generate CP. Elite armies should have *more* CP than others, not less. They have all these incredibly expensive Stratagems they can only ever use once, because they're starved for the very resource they need.

I guarantee I'd run Custodes without guard if I had enough goddamn CP to not need them.

This. The way CPs are generated is the inverse of what it should be.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ultimately, Command Points rewards you buying more models, so that’s why it’s there. ;-)

That argument fails to hold water when the armies that are the most starved for CP are also the cheapest to buy. If CP was some evil plan by GW to increase sales, Custodes would be absolutely swimming in them.

Breng77 wrote:
meh, guard has no where near the powerful stratagems that are in some other books. I'd Rank them solidly behind (in no particular order) CSM, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Nids, 1000 Sons, Deathguard, Daemons. They are space marine levels of stratagem, but have a ton of CP. They are no where near the top in good stratagems. As Unit said, the problem is that they act as a battery (3 CP + regen) for basically every competitive imperium army.

Armywide +1 to hit - is fantastic. +1 armor to a unit is great too. In fact - all the army specific stratagems for AM are good enough to bring a specific detachment just to be able to use them.

 EnTyme wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ultimately, Command Points rewards you buying more models, so that’s why it’s there. ;-)

That argument fails to hold water when the armies that are the most starved for CP are also the cheapest to buy. If CP was some evil plan by GW to increase sales, Custodes would be absolutely swimming in them.

Nah, it still requires you to buy models to fill out detachments. I like the CP mechanic don’t get me wrong, the only thing I hate is regenerating them. They should have stayed a finite resource to manage. Astra Militarum take the piss, as they start with 12+ and make more every turn. The Eldar are almost as abusive.

The starting CP number should be a hard cap - CP-gain abilities should not let a player surpass that. This means that a Guard or T'au fella going second cannot get more CP because the enemy used stratagems. While minor, this makes the game a bit more fair.

CP should have been attached to HQ's, with the expensive/"leadery" HQ's of elite armies giving more. Something like, each Captain in your army gives +3 CP while a Librarian might only give +2. It'd even help balance out the HQ's a bit if an Exalted Sorcerer gave more CP than a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch, for example.

Nice poll, OP.

I have no idea what is going on with the CP escalation:

I played a doubles game a few weeks ago, me and a DG player vs an IG player and an AM player. I had 12CP (which I spent 8 of to get my Daemons into deep strike) and my partner had 9CP, I thought that was an acceptable amount but then the IG player had 15CP and the AM player had 14CP. Me and my DG friend were starved of CP by turn 3 but our opponants were still swimming in it.

I thought this was some kind of crazy good CP farming but then I saw a GSC vs DE game a couple of days ago where they had 10+ CP each (can't remember exact numbers) and were generating more CP each turn with special rules.

Not sure how I feel about the CP generating and/or the highly CP efficient armies. All I really want is to be able to play my Khorne Daemons without crippling my CP supply before the game even begins (though I should just be thankful these new armies can't steal all of that investment I put into the Daemons because it happens before the battle).

 Arachnofiend wrote:
CP should have been attached to HQ's, with the expensive/"leadery" HQ's of elite armies giving more. Something like, each Captain in your army gives +3 CP while a Librarian might only give +2. It'd even help balance out the HQ's a bit if an Exalted Sorcerer gave more CP than a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch, for example.

Yay Tau!

It sounded like all this CP stuff was going to be fun little bonuses a player could use in a critical moment to push his army to victory but now it's getting stupid. Some armies barely use them and some armies can fall if they don't use them.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

It's fine that some armies generate more command points but this should be factored into the power of their stratagems. It's not. I mean in the case of AM - they generate the easiest AND have some of the best stratagems too.

Command point regurgitation needs to die a horrible death also - plus command points should also stay with the detachment that generated them.

Maybe a good solution for problems with elite army command point generation (custodes/GK) maybe have all of their really expensive HQ's generate additional command points.

Yeah honestly at first i was eh thats cute on girlymans blue dudes

but then suddenly im facing tau and admech and just going the hell. can i take my turn in peace or do you have to declare something everything i do a thing.

Command points are a cool idea, and I think so far they are implemented very well, save for a couple small adjustments.

They give this game a tactical depth that wasn't there before, and also can create variety in how different armies factions play.

The unfortunate side of command points is the lower tier armies generally have something in common - it's difficult to get CP, or their stratagems aren't very good.

The nice thing is, it's easier to add a few new stratagems, than it is to add a few new units or rework how units work fundamentally.

I am wholly in favor of this implementation so far. The only change I would make, is that you cap out at 12 CP, whether that is from your stock starting CP, or generated through abilities that recoup them when lost.

I think it's awesome they came up with unique detachment rules for dark elder, that helps with their CP. problem is it's the same thing GW always does, they didn't have a cohesive plan or direction and they just now figured out that some armies need special detachment and CP rules, after half the codecies have already been released, which screws the ones already out.
Some armies can be 12 CP with 500pts, some can't even get over 6 with a full 2000 points.

I think the CP system was meant to pomote lore friendly army building by rewarding things that aren't nonsensical, but instead it just turned the cheese up as most Cheese-beards do funky lists just to get extra CP and benefit from every chapter/faction/craftworld in the same army.

Personally I would like to see CP as a resource each turn that is generated rather than a flat amount based on detachment abuse that some factions can do far easier than others.

Each player generates 3CP at the start of the Battle Round, with CP not carrying over to the next turn. That way it's up to the player to decide if they use all their CP on a big 3CP strat in one turn, or stagger them out on several cheaper ones.

Obviously this would mean that some codexes would need their stratagems to be overhauled to fit into this model.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I would like to see CP as a resource each turn that is generated rather than a flat amount based on detachment abuse that some factions can do far easier than others.

Each player generates 3CP at the start of the Battle Round, with CP not carrying over to the next turn. That way it's up to the player to decide if they use all their CP on a big 3CP strat in one turn, or stagger them out on several cheaper ones.

Obviously this would mean that some codexes would need their stratagems to be overhauled to fit into this model.

Would be interesting or additionally CP could be generated off objectives. giving people a reason to stick on them or push people off early instead of ignoring them.

My only issue with CPs is that every new army is getting CPs back in some way, except for Chaos factions, with the Tallyman only getting CP from the specific DG ones. Yeah, it's fluffy or something... but why not extend that to every faction.

You're an eldar, gain your cps back from eldar Strategems.
You're an UM, gain them back from SM Strategems only.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I would like to see CP as a resource each turn that is generated rather than a flat amount based on detachment abuse that some factions can do far easier than others.

Each player generates 3CP at the start of the Battle Round, with CP not carrying over to the next turn. That way it's up to the player to decide if they use all their CP on a big 3CP strat in one turn, or stagger them out on several cheaper ones.

Obviously this would mean that some codexes would need their stratagems to be overhauled to fit into this model.

how about turning Command Points into Victory points? and vice versa. First blood? get a CP. Kill the Warlord? Get a CP. Last turn of your game, turn all your unused CPs into VPs.

I'd like to see CPs restricted by base of the type of army that generates them, and the balance to be designed around how easy it is to fill out detachments, so Custodes would have insanely powerful stratagiums but few CPs. Ig meanwhile would have kinda crappy stratigiums, but a lot of them

the end result is a 1 CP stratigium for IG that might give ONE unit X, would be a 1 CP stratigium that gives all custodes X.

Imperial Guard stratagems are severely limited by the units that benefit from them. For the most part you're boosting a 60-point squad of 10 Guardsmen: even if they're getting all sorts of nifty bonuses they're still not going to do much. If you can boost a more impressive unit, like giving Bullgryn +1 save or a Baneblade WS 2+, you're going to get greater dividends. The Guard also lack a high cost, high impact stratagem, like the ones that let you deepstrike units or fight twice.

The other army I play is Space Marines, and while they don't have the best stratagems they do have a decent spread, and they can boost higher cost units than the Guard can. Even a simple reroll stratagem will have more relative impact in a Marine army, where you have fewer attacks so each one in precious.

BrianDavion wrote:
I'd like to see CPs restricted by base of the type of army that generates them, and the balance to be designed around how easy it is to fill out detachments, so Custodes would have insanely powerful stratagiums but few CPs. Ig meanwhile would have kinda crappy stratigiums, but a lot of them

the end result is a 1 CP stratigium for IG that might give ONE unit X, would be a 1 CP stratigium that gives all custodes X.

That's basically how it is now. IG for example doesn't have all that super powerful expensive ones so I end up often with CP's to spend.

Of course what it DOES is that IG is often used as CP generator for others...

Holy s, the IG bias is real in this place.

Sedraxis wrote:
Holy s, the IG bias is real in this place.

Of course that has nothing to do with IG and IG supported factions being the dominant armies this edition.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Sedraxis wrote:
Holy s, the IG bias is real in this place.

Of course that has nothing to do with IG and IG supported factions being the dominant armies this edition.

* grabs popcorn and waits for the IG naysayers to enter and proclaim that IG is actually bottom tier.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Sedraxis wrote:
Holy s, the IG bias is real in this place.

Of course that has nothing to do with IG and IG supported factions being the dominant armies this edition.

Rather IG as part of imperial soup being good. Pure IG hasn't actually been dominating tournaments for a long time. What IG does is for fraction of army size(like few hundred points in 2k) provides cheap screen and CP.

Pure IG? Not top by a long shot. Solid army but not meta drivers any more. They were king when codex was released but with GW pumping out new codexes they have been relegated to useful support role in competive armies. What was last big tournament won by pure IG? Or majority of points spent on IG? Generally it's token IG infantry squads+mortars+CP's and then the real meat.

 meleti wrote:
Nice poll, OP.

It is my first one. Any criticism or suggestions?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Big FAQ introduced rules involving allied detachments and CPs or how many detachments you take of allies in proportion to your main army.

Like you declare your primary army then any detachment of allies reduces the CP it would usually give. So if you want to take IG as your primary army a Supreme Command of Custodes bikers captains would cost a CP rather than grant one. OR just instate a rule that you can take one allied detachment per 2 detachments of the declared primary army.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

What answer is missing?

 Sim-Life wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the Big FAQ introduced rules involving allied detachments and CPs or how many detachments you take of allies in proportion to your main army.

Like you declare your primary army then any detachment of allies reduces the CP it would usually give. So if you want to take IG as your primary army a Supreme Command of Custodes bikers captains would cost a CP rather than grant one. OR just instate a rule that you can take one allied detachment per 2 detachments of the declared primary army.

Howabout detachment specific CP only being usable by that faction?

No more IG battallions providing CP for BA/Custodes. Or if you want to use them you need to use wider keyword for your guys(Imperium) thus no regiment trait etc for your IG and custodes etc.

Command Points should be faction specific. If you are playing AM and SM and the AM gives you 7 Command Points and SM 1, then you can only use those 7 CP on the AM Stratagems, and not any SM stratagems.

Stop whining about CPs, they're perfectly fine and only broken when you add IG incredible number and regeneration from Warlord Trait + Relic

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Stop whining about CPs, they're perfectly fine and only broken when you add IG incredible number and regeneration from Warlord Trait + Relic

Ah so they are fine except for this and that but despite that don't do anything.

Yeah sorry no everything is not rainbows and candies and while you might be happy to pretend it is other's aren't.

tneva82 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Stop whining about CPs, they're perfectly fine and only broken when you add IG incredible number and regeneration from Warlord Trait + Relic

Ah so they are fine except for this and that but despite that don't do anything.

Yeah sorry no everything is not rainbows and candies and while you might be happy to pretend it is other's aren't.

Nah, just many people like you need a heavy dose of L2P

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
meh, guard has no where near the powerful stratagems that are in some other books. I'd Rank them solidly behind (in no particular order) CSM, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Nids, 1000 Sons, Deathguard, Daemons. They are space marine levels of stratagem, but have a ton of CP. They are no where near the top in good stratagems. As Unit said, the problem is that they act as a battery (3 CP + regen) for basically every competitive imperium army.

Armywide +1 to hit - is fantastic. +1 armor to a unit is great too. In fact - all the army specific stratagems for AM are good enough to bring a specific detachment just to be able to use them.

They are solid strats not game making great. +1 to hit for 2 CP, after an unsaved wound, against a single unit. It is good but not Uber unit shoots twice good, or my pox walkers add models for free good. +1 armor on generally 5+ save models. Again is solid, but not amazing. Sorry AM lack the strats that other books have that can break a game wide open and come close to ensuring your win.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Stop whining about CPs, they're perfectly fine and only broken when you add IG incredible number and regeneration from Warlord Trait + Relic

Ah so they are fine except for this and that but despite that don't do anything.

Yeah sorry no everything is not rainbows and candies and while you might be happy to pretend it is other's aren't.

Nah, just many people like you need a heavy dose of L2P

Ok so howabout you L2P against IG and their CP's.

After all you said CP's are perfectly whine. No need to do anything about it.

Or you could realize that a) no game is perfect thus "perfectly fine" is automatically incorrect anyway b) GW games are even worse than usual since they don't even WANT balance to hurt their profit lines.

tneva82 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Stop whining about CPs, they're perfectly fine and only broken when you add IG incredible number and regeneration from Warlord Trait + Relic

Ah so they are fine except for this and that but despite that don't do anything.

Yeah sorry no everything is not rainbows and candies and while you might be happy to pretend it is other's aren't.

Nah, just many people like you need a heavy dose of L2P

Ok so howabout you L2P against IG and their CP's.

After all you said CP's are perfectly whine. No need to do anything about it.

Or you could realize that a) no game is perfect thus "perfectly fine" is automatically incorrect anyway b) GW games are even worse than usual since they don't even WANT balance to hurt their profit lines.

It is a IG problem then, not a generalized CP one

Ah right I forgot. You are obviously the one who has authority to decide what's valid problem so if YOU think it's problem it's fine and if YOU don't think it's problem it's whining.

Sorry. Forgot you are authority on what's problem and what's whining.

The poll is very skewed due to the options available.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Stop whining about CPs, they're perfectly fine and only broken when you add IG incredible number and regeneration from Warlord Trait + Relic

Ah so they are fine except for this and that but despite that don't do anything.

Yeah sorry no everything is not rainbows and candies and while you might be happy to pretend it is other's aren't.

Nah, just many people like you need a heavy dose of L2P

Ok so howabout you L2P against IG and their CP's.

After all you said CP's are perfectly whine. No need to do anything about it.

Or you could realize that a) no game is perfect thus "perfectly fine" is automatically incorrect anyway b) GW games are even worse than usual since they don't even WANT balance to hurt their profit lines.

It is a IG problem then, not a generalized CP one

It not just an IG problem either. Basically any army with a cheap HQ and Troops option can do it and it give a very easy advantage to them over elite armies, which they already have advantages over.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
meh, guard has no where near the powerful stratagems that are in some other books. I'd Rank them solidly behind (in no particular order) CSM, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Nids, 1000 Sons, Deathguard, Daemons. They are space marine levels of stratagem, but have a ton of CP. They are no where near the top in good stratagems. As Unit said, the problem is that they act as a battery (3 CP + regen) for basically every competitive imperium army.

Armywide +1 to hit - is fantastic. +1 armor to a unit is great too. In fact - all the army specific stratagems for AM are good enough to bring a specific detachment just to be able to use them.

Overlapping Fields of Fire requires the Detachment to be Cadian, has to inflict an unsaved wound on an enemy unit in the shooting phase, and requires everyone to be Cadian and target the same enemy unit this phase.

It's basically the Markerlight Stratagem.

Every army needs Stratagems to be "effective". IG Stratagems aren't worse then any other codex. I see no reason for them to get more then others.

Give everyone X cp per Y points. Maybe reward troop choices by awarding +CP per pointd spent on troops.

Once again it looks like GK win the race to the bottom. Low CP, no way to gain/recover CP, and crappy stratagems.

GO GK.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Once again it looks like GK win the race to the bottom. Low CP, no way to gain/recover CP, and crappy stratagems.

GO GK.

Things like Psybolts and the Psilencer one would be perfectly fine, except GW decided to make them 2CP because.

 nordsturmking wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I didn't vote because my answer isn't up there.

What answer is missing?

An option like - command points are a cool idea that isn't being handled well at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Command Points should be faction specific. If you are playing AM and SM and the AM gives you 7 Command Points and SM 1, then you can only use those 7 CP on the AM Stratagems, and not any SM stratagems.

Yep


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
meh, guard has no where near the powerful stratagems that are in some other books. I'd Rank them solidly behind (in no particular order) CSM, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Nids, 1000 Sons, Deathguard, Daemons. They are space marine levels of stratagem, but have a ton of CP. They are no where near the top in good stratagems. As Unit said, the problem is that they act as a battery (3 CP + regen) for basically every competitive imperium army.

Armywide +1 to hit - is fantastic. +1 armor to a unit is great too. In fact - all the army specific stratagems for AM are good enough to bring a specific detachment just to be able to use them.

Overlapping Fields of Fire requires the Detachment to be Cadian, has to inflict an unsaved wound on an enemy unit in the shooting phase, and requires everyone to be Cadian and target the same enemy unit this phase.

It's basically the Markerlight Stratagem.

I didn't say it was game breaking - it's just very good. Space marines don't have a single stratagem at this level. GK nether.

Sedraxis wrote:
Every army needs Stratagems to be "effective". IG Stratagems aren't worse then any other codex. I see no reason for them to get more then others.

Give everyone X cp per Y points. Maybe reward troop choices by awarding +CP per pointd spent on troops.

Back in my day, GW believed that their players were smart enough to figure out percentages!

If your army is over X% Heavy Support OR Fast attack OR Elite - get a small bonus

If your army is over Y% Troops - get a bigger bonus

 Xenomancers wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
meh, guard has no where near the powerful stratagems that are in some other books. I'd Rank them solidly behind (in no particular order) CSM, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Eldar, Nids, 1000 Sons, Deathguard, Daemons. They are space marine levels of stratagem, but have a ton of CP. They are no where near the top in good stratagems. As Unit said, the problem is that they act as a battery (3 CP + regen) for basically every competitive imperium army.

Armywide +1 to hit - is fantastic. +1 armor to a unit is great too. In fact - all the army specific stratagems for AM are good enough to bring a specific detachment just to be able to use them.

Overlapping Fields of Fire requires the Detachment to be Cadian, has to inflict an unsaved wound on an enemy unit in the shooting phase, and requires everyone to be Cadian and target the same enemy unit this phase.

It's basically the Markerlight Stratagem.

I didn't say it was game breaking - it's just very good. Space marines don't have a single stratagem at this level. GK nether.

Sure they do, Strike from the shadows is absolutely on that level or better, the fight twice strat is on that level (though marines don't have great units to use it with, but the strat itself is on the same level.) The ultra marines strat to re-roll 1s is on that level it is just redundant based on the fact that re-rolls come from tons of other sources in the book, Born in the Saddle from white scars is on that level. Marines have some decent stratagems that I put on par with +1 to hit for 2 CP against a wounded unit. The problem marines have is that their best strats either specify a particular unit and so are limited, or a specific chapter. But sure IG are a little better than vanilla space marines. But that strat is no where near on the level of those in the top books.

Personally I think to balance CP they need to make all strats cost 1 point, and cap strats at 8 points and make it so you can only ever have one relic/trait that allows you to recover CP on your stratagem use or your opanants. Right now for guard for example it's extremely easy for them to no only bank a bunch of CP but also generate more.

For example, guwrd have a trait(or relic can't remember) that let's them role a dice for each CP spent where T sons only get to use it per stratagem that your opponent uses. So strats are not equal nor our the relics/traits that deal with CP equal.

Its more guard can get the recover on a 5+ warlord trait and steal on a 5+ relic, combining them gets you 1in 3 of your comand points back and 1 in 3 of your enemies comand points.
And you get a 1 in 3 chance to regain these new CP's aswell.

Most armies can play CP shenanigans at the some level, just not aswell.
Ultramarine warlord trait is 5+ no steeling
Choas get a steel on a 5+ no regeneration.
Tau can do both on a 6+ from a relic.
Its the combo of 1in3 plus 1in3 thats broken, 1in3 and 0 or 1in 6 are vaguely balanced

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Personally I think to balance CP they need to make all strats cost 1 point, and cap strats at 8 points and make it so you can only ever have one relic/trait that allows you to recover CP on your stratagem use or your opanants. Right now for guard for example it's extremely easy for them to no only bank a bunch of CP but also generate more.

For example, guwrd have a trait(or relic can't remember) that let's them role a dice for each CP spent where T sons only get to use it per stratagem that your opponent uses. So strats are not equal nor our the relics/traits that deal with CP equal.

It's a Warlord Trait(Grand Strategist) and you roll a single dice for each Command Point spent by the Guard player when using Stratagems. On a 5+ that Command Point is immediately refunded.

It also is only applicable while the Warlord is:
a) On the table
b) Alive

I love these threads and how guard gets called OP despite being a middle of the pack army that's only really "competitive" when being used as disposable shields for another army or cheap CP generation.

The solution is beyond simple, just make CP only be able to be used by the faction that actually generates them. At this point, I'm so tired of the crying I wish they would just ban soup in matched play

For a pure IG army, Ive yet to see the CP generation be a real issue, mostly because of the limitation on reuses of stratagems in a turn and the relative weeniness of most IG units individually. As a result, those IG armies that can generate 20+ CP in a game end up spending no more than most other armies or end up using strategems on much weaker units. The last time I ran a CP spam army list, I think I used 9 CP's out of the 20 I had available to use over the course of the game, the rest just never had a reason to be used.

The issue is when paired with other armies, that can use the IG CP generation to use very powerful stratagems more often/easier than they were intended, and do so on units that often derive much more benefit from such.

Option number 1 is silly since we might chose to include tax units in order to get CPs or we can give up some CP to avoid lackluster units.

The real point about balance is that armies index should play against other index, even if the faction they face already has a codex. Because is not fair that some armies have detachment bonuses, relics and stratagems and the index armies only have one relic and one stratagem from Chapter Approved. But no one is willing to play with the index when the codex is available

Asmodios wrote:
I love these threads and how guard gets called OP despite being a middle of the pack army that's only really "competitive" when being used as disposable shields for another army or cheap CP generation.

The solution is beyond simple, just make CP only be able to be used by the faction that actually generates them. At this point, I'm so tired of the crying I wish they would just ban soup in matched play

holy crap dude - they are the best army in the game. Look a little farther than tournment results. Tournaments a not designed to be balancing expeditions - they aren't even playing the real game we play every day...where mostly we are playing maelstrom or eternal war and most of the time the winner is going to be decided by a tabling in 5-6 turns. 2 1/2 hour game with slow playing is not actually the competitive game - real competitive play involves playing the game to conclusion.

I agree that soup should be banned in match play though - also about detachments and CP. Don't make yourself look silly by calling IG middle of the pack though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I love these threads and how guard gets called OP despite being a middle of the pack army that's only really "competitive" when being used as disposable shields for another army or cheap CP generation.

The solution is beyond simple, just make CP only be able to be used by the faction that actually generates them. At this point, I'm so tired of the crying I wish they would just ban soup in matched play

holy crap dude - they are the best army in the game. Look a little farther than tournment results. Tournaments a not designed to be balancing expeditions - they aren't even playing the real game we play every day...where mostly we are playing maelstrom or eternal war and most of the time the winner is going to be decided by a tabling in 5-6 turns. 2 1/2 hour game with slow playing is not actually the competitive game - real competitive play involves playing the game to conclusion.

I agree that soup should be banned in match play though - also about detachments and CP. Don't make yourself look silly by calling IG middle of the pack though.

"trust me guard are broken just ignore all-tournament result for months"

I will just apply this logic to everything from now on

>The Browns are the best team in football just ignore W-L in games the real play takes place on the practice field and they are amazing
>Tyranid hive tyrants are terrible just ignore recent tournaments
>All of the cooks on the food network are terrible that's not how really cooking in a real kitchen takes place
>ect ect ect

Thanks for proving my point of how ridiculous the guard hate is on Dakka and how crazy the explanations are

I could not tell you if there's a balance issue with Stratagems.

I do know elite armies are having a hard time of it with 8th edition, and armies that can take endless hordes of chaff get more command points because they can put up more formations.

It would be interesting if Command Points were tied to the type of unit you are taking in addition to detachments. For example: if I took a unit of Grey Knight Paladins, maybe they come with a CP or two. That might make up for their ungodly cost.

Tournaments are what people have data for. We dont have pickup game data, it just doesnt exist, anecdotally people can make any argument, but broadly the complaints about IG have dropped off strongly and sharply in recent months, while stuff like the "totally broken and should be 200pt" Manticore are increasingly less popular next to existing alternatives looking at both tournament lists and the Dakka army list subforum.

Asmodios wrote:


I will just apply this logic to everything from now on

>The Browns are the best team in football just ignore W-L in games the real play takes place on the practice field and they are amazing
>Tyranid hive tyrants are terrible just ignore recent tournaments
>All of the cooks on the food network are terrible that's not how really cooking in a real kitchen takes place
>ect ect ect

Thanks for proving my point of how ridiculous the guard hate is on Dakka and how crazy the explanations are

Again, it's a fallacy that something isn't overpowered, just because it doesn't actually win the tournaments. An army can consistently be at the bottom tables only of big tournaments, and still be seriously overpowered to 90% of the 40K lists out there.

Just looking at tournaments is a far too tiny, far to heavily skewed sample to even remotely judge if something's unbalanced or not.

In fact if something is truly balanced, i.e. roughly in the middle, powerwise, of all mathematically possible combinations of how you can build a list in 40K, it'll probably be nowhere near a tournament, where all players look for units/armies/synergies above the power curve, even if that combination only places 1000 out of 1000 in the sub-sample of tournament 40K.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Tournaments are what people have data for. We dont have pickup game data, it just doesnt exist, anecdotally people can make any argument, but broadly the complaints about IG have dropped off strongly and sharply in recent months, while stuff like the "totally broken and should be 200pt" Manticore are increasingly less popular next to existing alternatives looking at both tournament lists and the Dakka army list subforum.

Just because you only have data for that, doesn't mean its meaningful data. If you need the proper data, it needs to be collected.

If you only had data on the exercise habits of Olympic Athletes, that data would still be useless to make judgments about good/bad/typical exercise habits of the entire population. Just because it's the only data doesn't magically make it useful data.

As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Blndmage wrote:
As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Uh Sautekh, dude. Stuck to a sub faction like the Ultramarines but it IS there.

The idea of command points is fine. Some codexes have much better stratagems than others but it does help make each one more flavourful and less carbon copy of the others. The only problem I have seen is when armies are able to get more and more CP back. I do think that each army should be capped at their initial value so you can get them back just not get more than you started with.

Where's Farseer_V2? He's quite capable of elucidating why tournaments are the only data points we have regarding balance.

I know it because I've argued against him.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blndmage wrote:
As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Uh Sautekh, dude. Stuck to a sub faction like the Ultramarines but it IS there.

Right, as a Novokh CC based force, that helps.
It super frustrating how something so important is locked behind one faction.

I feel like each faction should have a CP regain trigger, like for Novokh, it could be when you defeat a unit in the Fight phase, gain D3 CP, D6 if the unit had 10+ wounds.

Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blndmage wrote:
As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Uh Sautekh, dude. Stuck to a sub faction like the Ultramarines but it IS there.

Right, as a Novokh CC based force, that helps.
It super frustrating how something so important is locked behind one faction.

I feel like each faction should have a CP regain trigger, like for Novokh, it could be when you defeat a unit in the Fight phase, gain D3 CP, D6 if the unit had 10+ wounds.

My favorite part of Warhammer are the people who think strengths and weaknesses of various factions should all be obviated because they don't have something.

Like Space Marine players who want Predators to be better than Russes. Factions have strengths and weaknesses. That's part of what makes the game fun. Either learn to play around yours or choose a different faction.

Not all factions have strengths and weaknesses. GKs only have weaknesses and mediocrity.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not all factions have strengths and weaknesses. GKs only have weaknesses and mediocrity.

Actually they're fairly strong against Daemons. That automatic max-damage smite plus re-rolling to hit and to wound are bonkers.

I just stared Slaanesh Daemons and brought the 666 point Lord of War that gets a 2+ invuln in the fight phase for 2CP. She died in a single turn to 500 pts of GK.

There's a Daemon strategem that puts any unit killed by a GK unit back into play so uh....?

Lanlaorn wrote:
There's a Daemon strategem that puts any unit killed by a GK unit back into play so uh....?

Yes, for 2 CP, and it can't be a named Daemon. We'll see how well a 7-9CP daemon army does when it can get back exactly 3-4 units, if it's not spending CP on anything else, against an entire army that can do 3mw per turn per unit against it reliably and gets re-rolls to-hit-and-to-wound against them in every phase.

The 2CP stratagem is probably the only thing keeping the Daemon player from flipping the table, lol.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I love these threads and how guard gets called OP despite being a middle of the pack army that's only really "competitive" when being used as disposable shields for another army or cheap CP generation.

The solution is beyond simple, just make CP only be able to be used by the faction that actually generates them. At this point, I'm so tired of the crying I wish they would just ban soup in matched play

holy crap dude - they are the best army in the game. Look a little farther than tournment results. Tournaments a not designed to be balancing expeditions - they aren't even playing the real game we play every day...where mostly we are playing maelstrom or eternal war and most of the time the winner is going to be decided by a tabling in 5-6 turns. 2 1/2 hour game with slow playing is not actually the competitive game - real competitive play involves playing the game to conclusion.

I agree that soup should be banned in match play though - also about detachments and CP. Don't make yourself look silly by calling IG middle of the pack though.

"trust me guard are broken just ignore all-tournament result for months"

I will just apply this logic to everything from now on

>The Browns are the best team in football just ignore W-L in games the real play takes place on the practice field and they are amazing
>Tyranid hive tyrants are terrible just ignore recent tournaments
>All of the cooks on the food network are terrible that's not how really cooking in a real kitchen takes place
>ect ect ect

Thanks for proving my point of how ridiculous the guard hate is on Dakka and how crazy the explanations are

Ignore my actual argument and talk about a bunch of unrelated stuff - sure.

Let me ask you a question. What % of tournament games go beyond turn 4? Would you be surprised to know it is less than 50% at most of these big events due to time limits???? How many NFL games would have a different outcome if they just called the game in the 3rd quarter? Also have you ever heard of slow playing? Your opponent can literally cheat you out of a turn if he knows he can't win in the next turn. Tournaments in their current state are a huge joke - just playing a different house rules version of the game with a 2 1/2 hour time limit. Maybe once we get chess clocks going at these events and games start to finish more this data will matter. Currently - it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
There's a Daemon strategem that puts any unit killed by a GK unit back into play so uh....?

Yes, for 2 CP, and it can't be a named Daemon. We'll see how well a 7-9CP daemon army does when it can get back exactly 3-4 units, if it's not spending CP on anything else, against an entire army that can do 3mw per turn per unit against it reliably and gets re-rolls to-hit-and-to-wound against them in every phase.

The 2CP stratagem is probably the only thing keeping the Daemon player from flipping the table, lol.

It is - I was scared at first about the bring back stratagem but after tabling most daemon armies I face in 3 turns - I figured out it really is still advantage GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blndmage wrote:
As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Uh Sautekh, dude. Stuck to a sub faction like the Ultramarines but it IS there.

Right, as a Novokh CC based force, that helps.
It super frustrating how something so important is locked behind one faction.

I feel like each faction should have a CP regain trigger, like for Novokh, it could be when you defeat a unit in the Fight phase, gain D3 CP, D6 if the unit had 10+ wounds.

My favorite part of Warhammer are the people who think strengths and weaknesses of various factions should all be obviated because they don't have something.

Like Space Marine players who want Predators to be better than Russes. Factions have strengths and weaknesses. That's part of what makes the game fun. Either learn to play around yours or choose a different faction.

Thats more of an issue about AM infantry and tanks being better than marines. If marines had great infantry and guard had great tanks - you wouldn't see these complaints as much. It is pretty stupid how much better a russ is than a pred though. You have to admit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
There's a Daemon strategem that puts any unit killed by a GK unit back into play so uh....?

Yes, for 2 CP, and it can't be a named Daemon. We'll see how well a 7-9CP daemon army does when it can get back exactly 3-4 units, if it's not spending CP on anything else, against an entire army that can do 3mw per turn per unit against it reliably and gets re-rolls to-hit-and-to-wound against them in every phase.

The 2CP stratagem is probably the only thing keeping the Daemon player from flipping the table, lol.

It's funny that you think Daemon players have enough CP left after deep striking half their army to use the GK stratagem.

Sunny Side Up wrote:



Just because you only have data for that, doesn't mean its meaningful data. If you need the proper data, it needs to be collected.

If you only had data on the exercise habits of Olympic Athletes, that data would still be useless to make judgments about good/bad/typical exercise habits of the entire population. Just because it's the only data doesn't magically make it useful data.

I don't debate any of that. However, that doesnt change the fact that its the only hard data we have available, and that we have no data to to really support the other conclusion. The gap between tournament 40k and pickup 40k, while obviously existent, also isnt the same thing as comparing your average joe to an Olympian.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blndmage wrote:
As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Uh Sautekh, dude. Stuck to a sub faction like the Ultramarines but it IS there.

Right, as a Novokh CC based force, that helps.
It super frustrating how something so important is locked behind one faction.

I feel like each faction should have a CP regain trigger, like for Novokh, it could be when you defeat a unit in the Fight phase, gain D3 CP, D6 if the unit had 10+ wounds.

My favorite part of Warhammer are the people who think strengths and weaknesses of various factions should all be obviated because they don't have something.

Like Space Marine players who want Predators to be better than Russes. Factions have strengths and weaknesses. That's part of what makes the game fun. Either learn to play around yours or choose a different faction.

Nobody said they wanted to make Predators better than Russes. They just wanted them better. Stop making stuff up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not all factions have strengths and weaknesses. GKs only have weaknesses and mediocrity.

Actually they're fairly strong against Daemons. That automatic max-damage smite plus re-rolling to hit and to wound are bonkers.

I just stared Slaanesh Daemons and brought the 666 point Lord of War that gets a 2+ invuln in the fight phase for 2CP. She died in a single turn to 500 pts of GK.

You mean one of the Daemon LoW that has a fluffy point cost and isn't good?

I'd buy your argument if you didn't go straight for a comparison like that.

I think the logic flaw in the way CPs are implemented is that, in theory, cheaper models that generate CP easily are also less valuable to spend CP on. The problem is just that its trivial to take 1 or 2 things that are substantially valuable and funny all your CP into them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I love these threads and how guard gets called OP despite being a middle of the pack army that's only really "competitive" when being used as disposable shields for another army or cheap CP generation.

The solution is beyond simple, just make CP only be able to be used by the faction that actually generates them. At this point, I'm so tired of the crying I wish they would just ban soup in matched play

holy crap dude - they are the best army in the game. Look a little farther than tournment results. Tournaments a not designed to be balancing expeditions - they aren't even playing the real game we play every day...where mostly we are playing maelstrom or eternal war and most of the time the winner is going to be decided by a tabling in 5-6 turns. 2 1/2 hour game with slow playing is not actually the competitive game - real competitive play involves playing the game to conclusion.

I agree that soup should be banned in match play though - also about detachments and CP. Don't make yourself look silly by calling IG middle of the pack though.

"trust me guard are broken just ignore all-tournament result for months"

I will just apply this logic to everything from now on

>The Browns are the best team in football just ignore W-L in games the real play takes place on the practice field and they are amazing
>Tyranid hive tyrants are terrible just ignore recent tournaments
>All of the cooks on the food network are terrible that's not how really cooking in a real kitchen takes place
>ect ect ect

Thanks for proving my point of how ridiculous the guard hate is on Dakka and how crazy the explanations are

Ignore my actual argument and talk about a bunch of unrelated stuff - sure.

Let me ask you a question. What % of tournament games go beyond turn 4? Would you be surprised to know it is less than 50% at most of these big events due to time limits???? How many NFL games would have a different outcome if they just called the game in the 3rd quarter? Also have you ever heard of slow playing? Your opponent can literally cheat you out of a turn if he knows he can't win in the next turn. Tournaments in their current state are a huge joke - just playing a different house rules version of the game with a 2 1/2 hour time limit. Maybe once we get chess clocks going at these events and games start to finish more this data will matter. Currently - it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Lanlaorn wrote:
There's a Daemon strategem that puts any unit killed by a GK unit back into play so uh....?

Yes, for 2 CP, and it can't be a named Daemon. We'll see how well a 7-9CP daemon army does when it can get back exactly 3-4 units, if it's not spending CP on anything else, against an entire army that can do 3mw per turn per unit against it reliably and gets re-rolls to-hit-and-to-wound against them in every phase.

The 2CP stratagem is probably the only thing keeping the Daemon player from flipping the table, lol.

It is - I was scared at first about the bring back stratagem but after tabling most daemon armies I face in 3 turns - I figured out it really is still advantage GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Blndmage wrote:
As a Necron player, I'm finding the ability of other armies to gain CP back while we can't vey frustrating!

Uh Sautekh, dude. Stuck to a sub faction like the Ultramarines but it IS there.

Right, as a Novokh CC based force, that helps.
It super frustrating how something so important is locked behind one faction.

I feel like each faction should have a CP regain trigger, like for Novokh, it could be when you defeat a unit in the Fight phase, gain D3 CP, D6 if the unit had 10+ wounds.

My favorite part of Warhammer are the people who think strengths and weaknesses of various factions should all be obviated because they don't have something.

Like Space Marine players who want Predators to be better than Russes. Factions have strengths and weaknesses. That's part of what makes the game fun. Either learn to play around yours or choose a different faction.

Thats more of an issue about AM infantry and tanks being better than marines. If marines had great infantry and guard had great tanks - you wouldn't see these complaints as much. It is pretty stupid how much better a russ is than a pred though. You have to admit.

No i "ignored" your point because it was as terrible as the examples I listed.
1st.... slow play generally helps codexes like guard because you are a gun line and a screen. The gun line is effective from turn 1 and get less affected as A. its screen dies B. It dies as the game goes on. So the shorter the game the stronger you typically are because you have to have good early game shooting to win.
2nd..... Your general point is idiotic. "hey guys lets ignore the data from the top players around the world bringing the absolute hardest lists possible for large cash prizes because at my local FLG the guard player i know keeps beating me"
There is absolutely 0 data that indicates that guard are somehow OP in everything except tournaments. The best players in the world don't bring guard yet I'm supposed to think that they are broken because random dude X cant beat random dude Y at friday night game night and came to Dakka to try to nerf guard again.

Okay man - I can see there is no convincing you otherwise so I will just agree to disagree. You can continue to think that games that don't finish and use house rules are providing useful data on the balance of this game. AM are totally middle of the pack also.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay man - I can see there is no convincing you otherwise so I will just agree to disagree. You can continue to think that games that don't finish and use house rules are providing useful data on the balance of this game. AM are totally middle of the pack also.

Yeah sorry, I'm not going to accept your anecdotal evidence that "guard are OP because people keep telling me they win their local game nights. But completely ignore actual statistical evidence from tournaments". I'm always 100% open to changing my mind if people present good arguments but yours is just terrible and spitting in the face of actual evidence while presenting no evidence of your own.

So, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon 2018, 2 of the were Guard lists, and another 2 (including the top list) had healthy Guard components. Guard were better represented in the top 16 than Eldar or most of the Space Marine chapters - Dark Angels did about as well with 3 lists where they were primary, but no lists where they were secondary. Chaos only did better if taken as a whole, and the only army that unarguably was better represented was Tyranids - and one of those Nid lists was one of the ones that had a Guard component.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay man - I can see there is no convincing you otherwise so I will just agree to disagree. You can continue to think that games that don't finish and use house rules are providing useful data on the balance of this game. AM are totally middle of the pack also.

Yeah sorry, I'm not going to accept your anecdotal evidence that "guard are OP because people keep telling me they win their local game nights. But completely ignore actual statistical evidence from tournaments". I'm always 100% open to changing my mind if people present good arguments but yours is just terrible and spitting in the face of actual evidence while presenting no evidence of your own.

Nothing I'm talking about is an ancedote - tournament games don't finish anymore than they do. It's a fact. There's not some kind of qualifier you have to get through to win the right to play in these tournaments - the players are just regular guys playing the game in a very different way than it plays at your local shop which doesn't have a time limit. There is a much simpler way to balance the game - it's called math. This game is entirely math based.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
So, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon 2018, 2 of the were Guard lists, and another 2 (including the top list) had healthy Guard components. Guard were better represented in the top 16 than Eldar or most of the Space Marine chapters - Dark Angels did about as well with 3 lists where they were primary, but no lists where they were secondary. Chaos only did better if taken as a whole, and the only army that unarguably was better represented was Tyranids - and one of those Nid lists was one of the ones that had a Guard component.

Yeah once again nobody is arguing that guard combined with other stuff is strong. Just like if you lump chaos all together they had more lists. But "guard" get called out as broken while constantly ignoring that is something+guard that does well. So yeah 2 guard lists made top 16 (I'm not even sure if they were pure guard but let's just say they were because I don't remember) that's not broken. Like you said Chaos 4, tyrnids 5, other imperium including either minority guard or no guard 4 and eldar 1. Yeah, I don't see where Guard is an issue there especially considering how Imperium is always the largest amount of armies taken and guard are popular. Like I said previously simply take away the ability to have a sub-faction generate CP for the rest of the army and guard is fine, heck just remove soup altogether because factions that can soup with others will always be impossible to balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Okay man - I can see there is no convincing you otherwise so I will just agree to disagree. You can continue to think that games that don't finish and use house rules are providing useful data on the balance of this game. AM are totally middle of the pack also.

Yeah sorry, I'm not going to accept your anecdotal evidence that "guard are OP because people keep telling me they win their local game nights. But completely ignore actual statistical evidence from tournaments". I'm always 100% open to changing my mind if people present good arguments but yours is just terrible and spitting in the face of actual evidence while presenting no evidence of your own.

Nothing I'm talking about is an ancedote - tournament games don't finish anymore than they do. It's a fact. There's not some kind of qualifier you have to get through to win the right to play in these tournaments - the players are just regular guys playing the game in a very different way than it plays at your local shop which doesn't have a time limit. There is a much simpler way to balance the game - it's called math. This game is entirely math based.

>wants to disregard tournament data because (its not representing true warhammer)
>presents no data from "real warhammer"
>continues to say Data supports what you're saying
yeah sorry, you can't just claim that "data and numbers" back you up when you are showing nothing. Nothing proves a game-ending earlier hurts guard (id actually argue the opposite). No actual data about Guard win-loss rate outside of tournaments with any statistically significant data

Asmodios wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
So, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon 2018, 2 of the were Guard lists, and another 2 (including the top list) had healthy Guard components. Guard were better represented in the top 16 than Eldar or most of the Space Marine chapters - Dark Angels did about as well with 3 lists where they were primary, but no lists where they were secondary. Chaos only did better if taken as a whole, and the only army that unarguably was better represented was Tyranids - and one of those Nid lists was one of the ones that had a Guard component.

Yeah once again nobody is arguing that guard combined with other stuff is strong. Just like if you lump chaos all together they had more lists. But "guard" get called out as broken while constantly ignoring that is something+guard that does well. So yeah 2 guard lists made top 16 (I'm not even sure if they were pure guard but let's just say they were because I don't remember) that's not broken. Like you said Chaos 4, tyrnids 5, other imperium including either minority guard or no guard 4 and eldar 1. Yeah, I don't see where Guard is an issue there especially considering how Imperium is always the largest amount of armies taken and guard are popular. Like I said previously simply take away the ability to have a sub-faction generate CP for the rest of the army and guard is fine, heck just remove soup altogether because factions that can soup with others will always be impossible to balance.

Having had a look, not one of the 4 lists containing guard spent 50% or more of their points on guard, in both "pure" guard lists you're looking at a detachment of around 700-800 points of guard with the rest being spent on blood angels and custodes, of the other 2 lists the winning list had around 400 points of guard while the tyrannid list containing them took around 800 points worth (the bulk of which is on a shadowsword).

Asmodios, I have some very blunt news for you: your data is every bit as worthless as Xenomancer’s.

Tournament results can be used as (inherently flawed) data to make some estimates on the state of balance solely and specifically within the narrow confines of similar tournaments. Saying that this data has any merit whatsoever in any environment that isn’t a similar tournament is analogous to measuring the heart rates of pregnant middle-aged women to determine a baseline heart rate for teenaged males. It’s worthless. If you’re going to appeal to data to give your argument weight over Xenomancer’s, then apply the basic standards of how data is collected.

It is entirely valid to argue that the Guard Codex is the most overpowered Codex even if it’s not topping tournament listings.

I happen to agree with that assertion. For argument’s sake let’s create an arbitrary measure of ‘percentage tournament efficiency’. Things like Flyrants and Dark Reapers are right at the pointy end near 100%, less epic but still good things like Jetbike Shield Captains are 90%, Mortarion might be 80% and say a Fellblade is a solid 2%. The actual numbers don’t matter but you get the idea.

Tournament players want to use things that are primarily 100% efficient, with maybe a few 90%ers and some 80%ers or even high 70%ers to fill out Detachments and make the army legal. They only care about things that are the most efficient.

I think it’s fair to say that the Guard Codex has a majority of units that are at the higher end. I’m not saying every unit operates at 90+%, but most of their units probably get a good 60-70% or better. Not good enough to be top-tables-spam-worthy, but strong. There’s a couple of stinkers in there that might get 30% but the bulk of the Codex sits well ahead of 50%. Not that it matters for tournaments, since they’re only concerned with the 4 or 5 units that operate at 80% or better.

Contrast that to the Space Marine Codex. They also have 4 or 5 units that operate at 80%+ (Fire Raptors, Guilliman, maybe Assbacks etc). From a tournament standpoint, the Marine Codex is therefore on a similar level to the Guard one - both have enough 80%+ers to make a list, so the rest of the Codex is broadly irrelevant.

Now consider every other environment that isn’t a tournament. The Guard player decides to shelve the cheese and only takes one or two of the 80+%ers, picks up a couple of stinker 30%er units and makes the bulk of their army out of the 60-80%er middling units for a less-competitive game. The Marine player does the same, taking one or two of their most efficient, a couple of terrible units, and the bulk from their middlling units.

This is where the inherent imbalance of the Guard Codex lies. Both players have 2 awesome units, 2 terrible units, and 10 middling units. However, the Guard’s middling units operate at 60-80%, whereas the bulk of the Marine Codex operates at say 40%. (Again, the exact numbers are meaningless, they’re just to show the point.) So while both players are going in with the same intent of using a balanced, middle of the road army, since most of Guard’s middlling units are so much stronger than the Marines’ middling units, the Guard army is way, way stronger.

That’s why the Guard Codex is overpowered: most Codexes have an even spread of units from terrible to fantastic. Guard have one or two fantastic units, one or two terrible ones, and then the rest is above average. This makes exactly zero difference to tournament rankings, but it makes a world of difference to the rest of the community. That, in my eyes, is why there is so much angst about the Guard Codex. Even if you play a fluffy, friendly list with a cool theme, you’re always packing a strong, near-tournament list. Most other Codexes simply can’t.

I just had a battle. Space Marines versus Dark Eldar. So, the first codex to come out versus the latest.

I had 8 command points. 3 base, 3 from battalion, 2 from having 2 vanguard. Playing Iron Hands with lots of dreadnoughts.

He started the game with 12. 3 base, and the rest from Patrol Detachments. He also got two more for having Urien Rakarth, plus the ability to 'steal' command points on a 6+, which he used to gain another 4 through the course of the game. That means he effectively had 18 command points that he was able to use for lots of stratagems and re-rolls across the board.

Most of his stratagems were very good, tailored to his list, like the ability to replenish a unit of wracks or give two other HQ's warlord traits.

The best thing I had going for me was the Counter Offensive, which every army has. Didn't get a chance to use the Auspex scan this game. Everything else I spent on just re-rolls.

There's a massive difference between command point effectiveness, especially when we're talking about my 'elite' army that got tabled, and his 'totally not horde' army that I just couldn't pin down.

kombatwombat wrote:
Asmodios, I have some very blunt news for you: your data is every bit as worthless as Xenomancer’s.

Tournament results can be used as (inherently flawed) data to make some estimates on the state of balance solely and specifically within the narrow confines of similar tournaments. Saying that this data has any merit whatsoever in any environment that isn’t a similar tournament is analogous to measuring the heart rates of pregnant middle-aged women to determine a baseline heart rate for teenaged males. It’s worthless. If you’re going to appeal to data to give your argument weight over Xenomancer’s, then apply the basic standards of how data is collected.

It is entirely valid to argue that the Guard Codex is the most overpowered Codex even if it’s not topping tournament listings.

I happen to agree with that assertion. For argument’s sake let’s create an arbitrary measure of ‘percentage tournament efficiency’. Things like Flyrants and Dark Reapers are right at the pointy end near 100%, less epic but still good things like Jetbike Shield Captains are 90%, Mortarion might be 80% and say a Fellblade is a solid 2%. The actual numbers don’t matter but you get the idea.

Tournament players want to use things that are primarily 100% efficient, with maybe a few 90%ers and some 80%ers or even high 70%ers to fill out Detachments and make the army legal. They only care about things that are the most efficient.

I think it’s fair to say that the Guard Codex has a majority of units that are at the higher end. I’m not saying every unit operates at 90+%, but most of their units probably get a good 60-70% or better. Not good enough to be top-tables-spam-worthy, but strong. There’s a couple of stinkers in there that might get 30% but the bulk of the Codex sits well ahead of 50%. Not that it matters for tournaments, since they’re only concerned with the 4 or 5 units that operate at 80% or better.

Contrast that to the Space Marine Codex. They also have 4 or 5 units that operate at 80%+ (Fire Raptors, Guilliman, maybe Assbacks etc). From a tournament standpoint, the Marine Codex is therefore on a similar level to the Guard one - both have enough 80%+ers to make a list, so the rest of the Codex is broadly irrelevant.

Now consider every other environment that isn’t a tournament. The Guard player decides to shelve the cheese and only takes one or two of the 80+%ers, picks up a couple of stinker 30%er units and makes the bulk of their army out of the 60-80%er middling units for a less-competitive game. The Marine player does the same, taking one or two of their most efficient, a couple of terrible units, and the bulk from their middlling units.

This is where the inherent imbalance of the Guard Codex lies. Both players have 2 awesome units, 2 terrible units, and 10 middling units. However, the Guard’s middling units operate at 60-80%, whereas the bulk of the Marine Codex operates at say 40%. (Again, the exact numbers are meaningless, they’re just to show the point.) So while both players are going in with the same intent of using a balanced, middle of the road army, since most of Guard’s middlling units are so much stronger than the Marines’ middling units, the Guard army is way, way stronger.

That’s why the Guard Codex is overpowered: most Codexes have an even spread of units from terrible to fantastic. Guard have one or two fantastic units, one or two terrible ones, and then the rest is above average. This makes exactly zero difference to tournament rankings, but it makes a world of difference to the rest of the community. That, in my eyes, is why there is so much angst about the Guard Codex. Even if you play a fluffy, friendly list with a cool theme, you’re always packing a strong, near-tournament list. Most other Codexes simply can’t.

I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

We have actual data/numbers/statistics from tournament play to make game balancing with and our other option is random guy on internet said that x army is broken because reasons. Yet somehow using tournament data is ignoring data and listing to random guy x complain on dakka is the way to make major changes to the game. Seriously the tournament scene is taking huge amounts of time to compile data and then gets torn apart on dakka for not “encompassing the real game” how about you guys start to world wide surveys of players and collecting hard data to make your claims with?

The funniest thing about this whole thing is I haven’t played in a tourney in 8th yet but my local gaming group has had roughly the same rankings as tournaments for power level, I simply don’t bring this up because it’s non scientific and too small of a sample size to push a narrative with yet everyone else hops on dakka the second they lose to an army containing any guard and wants them nerfed into dust




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gbghg wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
So, of the top 16 lists from Adepticon 2018, 2 of the were Guard lists, and another 2 (including the top list) had healthy Guard components. Guard were better represented in the top 16 than Eldar or most of the Space Marine chapters - Dark Angels did about as well with 3 lists where they were primary, but no lists where they were secondary. Chaos only did better if taken as a whole, and the only army that unarguably was better represented was Tyranids - and one of those Nid lists was one of the ones that had a Guard component.

Yeah once again nobody is arguing that guard combined with other stuff is strong. Just like if you lump chaos all together they had more lists. But "guard" get called out as broken while constantly ignoring that is something+guard that does well. So yeah 2 guard lists made top 16 (I'm not even sure if they were pure guard but let's just say they were because I don't remember) that's not broken. Like you said Chaos 4, tyrnids 5, other imperium including either minority guard or no guard 4 and eldar 1. Yeah, I don't see where Guard is an issue there especially considering how Imperium is always the largest amount of armies taken and guard are popular. Like I said previously simply take away the ability to have a sub-faction generate CP for the rest of the army and guard is fine, heck just remove soup altogether because factions that can soup with others will always be impossible to balance.

Having had a look, not one of the 4 lists containing guard spent 50% or more of their points on guard, in both "pure" guard lists you're looking at a detachment of around 700-800 points of guard with the rest being spent on blood angels and custodes, of the other 2 lists the winning list had around 400 points of guard while the tyrannid list containing them took around 800 points worth (the bulk of which is on a shadowsword).

Thank you for taking the time to look that up I simply didn’t have time today but that’s about what I thought I remembered. Guard is being taken for nothing but a few cheap bodies and CP generation and pure guard players shouldn’t be thrown to the bottom of the power curve for being included in soup

Asmodios wrote:

I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

We have actual data/numbers/statistics from tournament play to make game balancing with and our other option is random guy on internet said that x army is broken because reasons. Yet somehow using tournament data is ignoring data and listing to random guy x complain on dakka is the way to make major changes to the game. Seriously the tournament scene is taking huge amounts of time to compile data and then gets torn apart on dakka for not “encompassing the real game” how about you guys start to world wide surveys of players and collecting hard data to make your claims with?

Saying you can’t be bothered to try reading my point because you so vehemently disagree isn’t an argument. But I’ll rephrase it more directly in any case.

You’re taking a sample from Group A and using it to assume that the results will apply to Group B when you know there are relevant variables that differ between the groups. That is, you’re taking data from an environment where only the top 5 or 6 units in any given Codex appears (top tables at tournaments) and using it to make judgements on game balance in an environment where every unit in any given Codex appear. The variable - number of units making an appearance - is different between the two environments, so the data becomes every bit as worthless as having no data. Worse, it gives a dangerous false belief of the existence of data.



If the rest of my argument is beyond you, well... that’s unfortunate. I think there’s a reasonably coherent argument being made so I’m happy for it to stand up to the scrutiny of other readers.

As for your general attitude in your response, well, if you’re Australian you might remember what Christopher Pyne infamously said to Bill Shorten a couple of years ago. If you don’t know the reference, google Christopher Pyne Bill Shorten and watch the 30-second YouTube clip. It’s worth a giggle.

 gbghg wrote:

Having had a look, not one of the 4 lists containing guard spent 50% or more of their points on guard, in both "pure" guard lists you're looking at a detachment of around 700-800 points of guard with the rest being spent on blood angels and custodes, of the other 2 lists the winning list had around 400 points of guard while the tyrannid list containing them took around 800 points worth (the bulk of which is on a shadowsword).

Yeah. The designation is based on warlord. Is army that has 300 pts of guards and 1700 on others REALLY guard army?

Don't look just title of army. Look at the ARMY LIST. Token guard for CP does not guard army make.

Better idea would be to have name designated by what is WIDEST faction that covers all the force. so army that has just cadians is cadian. Army has cadians and catachan is IG. Army that has IG and space marines is Imperium. And even THAT isn't completely truthful. Only way real way ¨would be to actually look at the army list and see composition.

kombatwombat wrote:
Asmodios, I have some very blunt news for you: your data is every bit as worthless as Xenomancer’s.

Tournament results can be used as (inherently flawed) data to make some estimates on the state of balance solely and specifically within the narrow confines of similar tournaments. Saying that this data has any merit whatsoever in any environment that isn’t a similar tournament is analogous to measuring the heart rates of pregnant middle-aged women to determine a baseline heart rate for teenaged males. It’s worthless. If you’re going to appeal to data to give your argument weight over Xenomancer’s, then apply the basic standards of how data is collected.

It is entirely valid to argue that the Guard Codex is the most overpowered Codex even if it’s not topping tournament listings.

I happen to agree with that assertion. For argument’s sake let’s create an arbitrary measure of ‘percentage tournament efficiency’. Things like Flyrants and Dark Reapers are right at the pointy end near 100%, less epic but still good things like Jetbike Shield Captains are 90%, Mortarion might be 80% and say a Fellblade is a solid 2%. The actual numbers don’t matter but you get the idea.

Tournament players want to use things that are primarily 100% efficient, with maybe a few 90%ers and some 80%ers or even high 70%ers to fill out Detachments and make the army legal. They only care about things that are the most efficient.

I think it’s fair to say that the Guard Codex has a majority of units that are at the higher end. I’m not saying every unit operates at 90+%, but most of their units probably get a good 60-70% or better. Not good enough to be top-tables-spam-worthy, but strong. There’s a couple of stinkers in there that might get 30% but the bulk of the Codex sits well ahead of 50%. Not that it matters for tournaments, since they’re only concerned with the 4 or 5 units that operate at 80% or better.

Contrast that to the Space Marine Codex. They also have 4 or 5 units that operate at 80%+ (Fire Raptors, Guilliman, maybe Assbacks etc). From a tournament standpoint, the Marine Codex is therefore on a similar level to the Guard one - both have enough 80%+ers to make a list, so the rest of the Codex is broadly irrelevant.

Now consider every other environment that isn’t a tournament. The Guard player decides to shelve the cheese and only takes one or two of the 80+%ers, picks up a couple of stinker 30%er units and makes the bulk of their army out of the 60-80%er middling units for a less-competitive game. The Marine player does the same, taking one or two of their most efficient, a couple of terrible units, and the bulk from their middlling units.

This is where the inherent imbalance of the Guard Codex lies. Both players have 2 awesome units, 2 terrible units, and 10 middling units. However, the Guard’s middling units operate at 60-80%, whereas the bulk of the Marine Codex operates at say 40%. (Again, the exact numbers are meaningless, they’re just to show the point.) So while both players are going in with the same intent of using a balanced, middle of the road army, since most of Guard’s middlling units are so much stronger than the Marines’ middling units, the Guard army is way, way stronger.

That’s why the Guard Codex is overpowered: most Codexes have an even spread of units from terrible to fantastic. Guard have one or two fantastic units, one or two terrible ones, and then the rest is above average. This makes exactly zero difference to tournament rankings, but it makes a world of difference to the rest of the community. That, in my eyes, is why there is so much angst about the Guard Codex. Even if you play a fluffy, friendly list with a cool theme, you’re always packing a strong, near-tournament list. Most other Codexes simply can’t.

This. The average power level of the IG codex is at an entirely diffirent level.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:



Just because you only have data for that, doesn't mean its meaningful data. If you need the proper data, it needs to be collected.

If you only had data on the exercise habits of Olympic Athletes, that data would still be useless to make judgments about good/bad/typical exercise habits of the entire population. Just because it's the only data doesn't magically make it useful data.

I don't debate any of that. However, that doesnt change the fact that its the only hard data we have available, and that we have no data to to really support the other conclusion. The gap between tournament 40k and pickup 40k, while obviously existent, also isnt the same thing as comparing your average joe to an Olympian.

It's not a question of how big or small the difference is, but that the sample you're using is skewed/biased on the very variable you're looking at (exercise for Olympians, balance for tournaments).

The worst / most ineffective armies ever taken to tournaments are struturally still more powerful, because tournaments incentivise players to pick the stronger, more powerful stuff. It also creates a "sub-meta" just for tournaments, where a given unit might be "too weak/underpowered" in the sub-sample of tournament play (i.e. you won't see it often) but "too powerful/strong" in the entirety of 40K, once playtesting with some of the mathematically weakest possible lists out there is taking into account (pure Imperial Guard, Magnus and Mortarion, etc.. are likely current examples of units that fall into this category: Still far too strong for the majority of games/armies, but enough below the worst balance-offenders as to not be very tournament-relevant at the moment).

That is not totally accurate it would come down to how you use the data. Exercise habits of olympians could be used to determine what exercise habits are universally bad, so if there is something being done and a bunch of people are routinely injured doing it you can draw the conclusion that this is a bad practice.

The same can be said for tournament play. Top OP units or combos can be spotted and addressed. It will never create perfect balance, but it still helps.

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

We have actual data/numbers/statistics from tournament play to make game balancing with and our other option is random guy on internet said that x army is broken because reasons. Yet somehow using tournament data is ignoring data and listing to random guy x complain on dakka is the way to make major changes to the game. Seriously the tournament scene is taking huge amounts of time to compile data and then gets torn apart on dakka for not “encompassing the real game” how about you guys start to world wide surveys of players and collecting hard data to make your claims with?

Saying you can’t be bothered to try reading my point because you so vehemently disagree isn’t an argument. But I’ll rephrase it more directly in any case.

You’re taking a sample from Group A and using it to assume that the results will apply to Group B when you know there are relevant variables that differ between the groups. That is, you’re taking data from an environment where only the top 5 or 6 units in any given Codex appears (top tables at tournaments) and using it to make judgements on game balance in an environment where every unit in any given Codex appear. The variable - number of units making an appearance - is different between the two environments, so the data becomes every bit as worthless as having no data. Worse, it gives a dangerous false belief of the existence of data.



If the rest of my argument is beyond you, well... that’s unfortunate. I think there’s a reasonably coherent argument being made so I’m happy for it to stand up to the scrutiny of other readers.

As for your general attitude in your response, well, if you’re Australian you might remember what Christopher Pyne infamously said to Bill Shorten a couple of years ago. If you don’t know the reference, google Christopher Pyne Bill Shorten and watch the 30-second YouTube clip. It’s worth a giggle.

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about an argument over data collection or methodology. This thread is about opinions. Whenever the word "fair" comes into play it's all subjective.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about an argument over data collection or methodology. This thread is about opinions. Whenever the word "fair" comes into play it's all subjective.

Opinions are fine.... opinions backed by data are better. I could have the opinion that pre codex necrons were amazing and that they should have been nuked in their new codex but it would have been a poor opionion because people could show data that necrons were not broken.

Asmodios wrote:
I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

Jesus Christ.

This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I’m sorry but I could only make it through reading the first paragraph of your post because it was so devoid of logic I couldn’t bare to see what tortured excuse for an argument was used in the rest. Using the “using a pregnant woman’s heart rate as a baseline would be so dumb” was on its surface such a terrible analogy it’s hard to even comprehend why you thought it would persuade anyone.

In your example
1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat = tournament statistics
2. Nothing else

So yeah if the only measurement you had at all was pregnant woman’s heartbeats you do realize that is what we would use as a baseline if for whatever reason you couldn’t measure anyone else’s. Incase it’s hard to grasp

1.pregnant woman’s heartbeat= 40k tournament
2.no measurement at all= everything else

Jesus Christ.

Really solid post addressing the issues with making rules changes based on “feeling” units are OP while simultaneously ignoring hard data from tournaments. I’m really glad we have posts like yours that add incredible depth and thought to conversations


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

^exactly. While I don’t believe they are an amazing way to gather data (wouldn’t say terrible but that more subjective then based in fact) they are certainly better then making changes based on.... well nothing

Stratagems should be limited to only the faction of your Warlord's Stratagems.

It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of, nature of, and the gameplay of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game, so much so that you may as well be playing a different game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

And I made an incredibly simple point that he has failed to address over and over

Premise-we shouldn’t make changes to a game based on no data while the only data we have (tournament results) points to there being no issue with a faction

Conclusion- don’t ignore the only data we have when making changes

At no point have I argued that tournament data was perfect or infallible.... but I is 100% better then making changes based on no data at all other then random people arguing on dakka saying X is broken because I say so

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of, nature of, and the gameplay of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game, so much so that you may as well be playing a different game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

So where do you draw conclusions from? Youtube battle reports where they routinely get rules wrong? Forum anecdotes?

The only alternative is to not draw conclusions at all, and just let the game rot. Is that a better alternative?

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

You don't need to gather data. You run simulations with equations. If the math fits the units will be fair. This is very -very easy to do. Kind of like doing statistics homework - which I managed to do without trying really hard.

Also - bad data is actually worse than no data. Bad data leads you to draw crappy conclusions that aren't any better than an educated guess. I'm not suggesting we just guess at how to balance the game. I'm suggesting we make point reflect actual unit performance by mathing out the probabilities of a d6. This is not rocket science. Stop treating it like it is.

Like seriously - arguing against my point is kind of like saying "math doesn't work".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
It's like you're actively trying not to understand.
KombatWombat made an incredibly simple point.

Premise - The playstyle of, nature of, and the gameplay of tournaments is drastically different to most people's experience of the game, so much so that you may as well be playing a different game.

Conclusion - Don't draw conclusions about most people's experience of the game from tournament data.

So where do you draw conclusions from? Youtube battle reports where they routinely get rules wrong? Forum anecdotes?

The only alternative is to not draw conclusions at all, and just let the game rot. Is that a better alternative?

Math bro - Math.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

You don't need to gather data. You run simulations with equations. If the math fits the units will be fair. This is very -very easy to do. Kind of like doing statistics homework - which I managed to do without trying really hard.

This isn't actually possible, as positioning matters very much. Just to go to the age old example:

"Conscripts have too much firepower. They get 101002u9857u3817 lasgun shots with <ability X>"
"Conscripts are too good at screening. They take up 193409 inches of table space when all spread out."

Those two things are both mathematically provable and true, but are also useless on the actual tabletop, because this fabricated unit of conscripts couldn't do both at the same time. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from the math is ignoring the table state.

Another example, which you like to harp on, is the Manticore. The manticore's utility compared to its partner, the Russ, varies drastically with the table state. A manticore is less durable than a russ, but has more firepower for the first 4 turns, then runs out, for a comparable price. That's a fairly priced unit - except for indirect fire, which suddenly makes it AMAZING. Until there's nowhere to hide, then it's just a gakky russ with an ammunition limit. If the game is <4 turns, then it's AMAZING, until it goes 5+ turns, then it's just a gakky russ that can hide.

There are non-mathematical factors to this game that exist.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This thread is going places.

As for my $0.02: tournaments are bad places to gather data. However, they are far, far better than any other sources we have (which is none).

You don't need to gather data. You run simulations with equations. If the math fits the units will be fair. This is very -very easy to do. Kind of like doing statistics homework - which I managed to do without trying really hard.

This isn't actually possible, as positioning matters very much. Just to go to the age old example:

"Conscripts have too much firepower. They get 101002u9857u3817 lasgun shots with <ability X>"
"Conscripts are too good at screening. They take up 193409 inches of table space when all spread out."

Those two things are both mathematically provable and true, but are also useless on the actual tabletop, because this fabricated unit of conscripts couldn't do both at the same time. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from the math is ignoring the table state.

Another example, which you like to harp on, is the Manticore. The manticore's utility compared to its partner, the Russ, varies drastically with the table state. A manticore is less durable than a russ, but has more firepower for the first 4 turns, then runs out, for a comparable price. That's a fairly priced unit - except for indirect fire, which suddenly makes it AMAZING. Until there's nowhere to hide, then it's just a gakky russ with an ammunition limit. If the game is <4 turns, then it's AMAZING, until it goes 5+ turns, then it's just a gakky russ that can hide.

There are non-mathematical factors to this game that exist.

Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

Well heres the thing - it doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what we have now. Which it would be - significantly. Then we can make small adjustments to points/rules/ect because that is all that will be required. In regards to indirect fire sometimes being useless - this isn't a problem specific to manitcores - lots of units abilities are useless vs certain opponents but you still have to pay for them. Indirect fire is extremely powerful in 95% of the game you will play though - even if you can't hide you tank you can shoot things that are hiding...actually - it's useful in just about every game you will play in 40k - what are you talking about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Relics being free was easily the worst decision GW made with these Codices.

That's all the value some Relics have (0 worth).

Ash87 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Help me understand what you are saying because you are calling puretide a tax. It is the opposite - puretide is a free command point generator. You are going to use a reroll in the game (the majority of my command points go to rerolls) so spending 1 command point to get puretide is just spending that command point to get the reoll up front (which you would have used anyways) plus it give bonus CP through the game. I feel like it will generate about 2 on average. Sometimes none - sometimes like the last game I used it youll end the game with more CP than you started with - because it even works on opponents stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Relics being free was easily the worst decision GW made with these Codices.

I think 1 free relic is kind of cool.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

Well heres the thing - it doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what we have now. Which it would be - significantly. Then we can make small adjustments to points/rules/ect because that is all that will be required. In regards to indirect fire sometimes being useless - this isn't a problem specific to manitcores - lots of units abilities are useless vs certain opponents but you still have to pay for them. Indirect fire is extremely powerful in 95% of the game you will play though - even if you can't hide you tank you can shoot things that are hiding...actually - it's useful in just about every game you will play in 40k - what are you talking about?

I don't think it'd be that much better than what we have now. Balancing with math ignoring context is just as crippling a sin as balancing around context and ignoring math. You're literally saying "IGNORE CONTEXT, USE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST!" while the competing method is "USE CONTEXT, IGNORE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST" and it's essentially the same thing. Both are bad. Use both. Use math, and context, to adjust things.

And "you can shoot at things your opponent is hiding" depends a lot on your opponent trying to hide something. Any ability that you have that depends on your opponents actions being a certain way to be useful is a good ability, because it means that decisions your opponent makes have a difference. For example, I play a Slaanesh daemons army. I essentially never hide, because I have to get into CC to do anything. I recently played an Admech army with tons and tons of shooting (knight w/ 2 armigers were his only CC; otherwise it was 3 5-man skitarii squads, 2 robots, and 4 onagers). I just went wheeling across the table and caught everything in combat ASAP, because that's what happens when you bring no screens. A Manticore's ability to indirect fire would have been much MUCH less useful than a Leman Russ's Toughness 8 in that game, just as an example.

Context.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ash87 wrote:

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Help me understand what you are saying because you are calling puretide a tax. It is the opposite - puretide is a free command point generator. You are going to use a reroll in the game (the majority of my command points go to rerolls) so spending 1 command point to get puretide is just spending that command point to get the reoll up front (which you would have used anyways) plus it give bonus CP through the game. I feel like it will generate about 2 on average. Sometimes none - sometimes like the last game I used it youll end the game with more CP than you started with - because it even works on opponents stratagems.

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

Well heres the thing - it doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what we have now. Which it would be - significantly. Then we can make small adjustments to points/rules/ect because that is all that will be required. In regards to indirect fire sometimes being useless - this isn't a problem specific to manitcores - lots of units abilities are useless vs certain opponents but you still have to pay for them. Indirect fire is extremely powerful in 95% of the game you will play though - even if you can't hide you tank you can shoot things that are hiding...actually - it's useful in just about every game you will play in 40k - what are you talking about?

I don't think it'd be that much better than what we have now. Balancing with math ignoring context is just as crippling a sin as balancing around context and ignoring math. You're literally saying "IGNORE CONTEXT, USE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST!" while the competing method is "USE CONTEXT, IGNORE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST" and it's essentially the same thing. Both are bad. Use both. Use math, and context, to adjust things.

And "you can shoot at things your opponent is hiding" depends a lot on your opponent trying to hide something. Any ability that you have that depends on your opponents actions being a certain way to be useful is a good ability, because it means that decisions your opponent makes have a difference. For example, I play a Slaanesh daemons army. I essentially never hide, because I have to get into CC to do anything. I recently played an Admech army with tons and tons of shooting (knight w/ 2 armigers were his only CC; otherwise it was 3 5-man skitarii squads, 2 robots, and 4 onagers). I just went wheeling across the table and caught everything in combat ASAP, because that's what happens when you bring no screens. A Manticore's ability to indirect fire would have been much MUCH less useful than a Leman Russ's Toughness 8 in that game, just as an example.

Context.

First - our current game ignores context - it just also ignores mathematical balance as well. I'm not suggesting we ignore context - just that we start from a state of mathematical balance (this is what the index armies should have been.) Then you play test the game and identify problem units and create reasonable fixes like (conscripts can't take orders and lose 3 models every-time a commissar has to route them) instead of (conscripts can take orders on a 4+ but the cost as much an an infantry unit and can only be taken in units of 30 and commissars now hurt the unit instead of benefit them.)

Second - Russes are good - there are going to be situations the russ is better - sometimes the manticore. Their point costs should be similar. Manticores shouldn't be 30-40 points less.

 Xenomancers wrote:
First - our current game ignores context - it just also ignores mathematical balance as well. I'm not suggesting we ignore context - just that we start from a state of mathematical balance (this is what the index armies should have been.) Then you play test the game and identify problem units and create reasonable fixes like (conscripts can't take orders and lose 3 models every-time a commissar has to route them) instead of (conscripts can take orders on a 4+ but the cost as much an an infantry unit and can only be taken in units of 30 and commissars now hurt the unit instead of benefit them.)

Second - Russes are good - there are going to be situations the russ is better - sometimes the manticore. Their point costs should be similar. Manticores shouldn't be 30-40 points less.

I don't think the current game ignores context. I think using the tournament victories to balance the game is using context.

Manticores are 143 and Russes are 152 - a 9 point difference.

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First - our current game ignores context - it just also ignores mathematical balance as well. I'm not suggesting we ignore context - just that we start from a state of mathematical balance (this is what the index armies should have been.) Then you play test the game and identify problem units and create reasonable fixes like (conscripts can't take orders and lose 3 models every-time a commissar has to route them) instead of (conscripts can take orders on a 4+ but the cost as much an an infantry unit and can only be taken in units of 30 and commissars now hurt the unit instead of benefit them.)

Second - Russes are good - there are going to be situations the russ is better - sometimes the manticore. Their point costs should be similar. Manticores shouldn't be 30-40 points less.

I don't think the current game ignores context. I think using the tournament victories to balance the game is using context.

Manticores are 143 and Russes are 152 - a 9 point difference.

I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ash87 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Help me understand what you are saying because you are calling puretide a tax. It is the opposite - puretide is a free command point generator. You are going to use a reroll in the game (the majority of my command points go to rerolls) so spending 1 command point to get puretide is just spending that command point to get the reoll up front (which you would have used anyways) plus it give bonus CP through the game. I feel like it will generate about 2 on average. Sometimes none - sometimes like the last game I used it youll end the game with more CP than you started with - because it even works on opponents stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Relics being free was easily the worst decision GW made with these Codices.

I think 1 free relic is kind of cool.

It's only cool if all relics are equal when free. They CLEARLY aren't.

You have no reason to take the Spartean as is, as that free relic slot can go elsewhere. Yeah it's a cool idea, but it doesn't work.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

We've been through the Russ Manticore comparison before in other threads ad nauseum, the Manticores no LoS value is hard to quantify, but in general they compare favroably right where they currently are, and looking at IG tournament lists and lists on the army subforum here, Manticores are far from autoincludes with most lists including none at all.

Manticores aren't auto includes? I guess aliotoc really are THAT OP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

It is worth making the distinction however that online games are able to collect data from all levels of play, from pro levels of play all the way down to the noobs and straight up bads. That said just because something is broken at one level of play doesn't mean its broken at another in those cases a company has to choose what level they want to balance stuff for, do you balance for high level play or casual play? you can't really balance for both, not in all cases, not all the time.. GW on the other hand only has data from tourneys, from high level play so to speak, which makes it somewhat more obvious what they should balance for.

I think if you do try to build up a statistical spreadsheet you will get a reasonably close situation.

Why are Flyrants really good? Well you could say "look at the tournaments" but you can also say "look at the stats".

And I don't really see the argument for "different levels of play". Bring 7 Flyrants down to your FLGS and play someone with a random bunch of models. See who has a fun game.

Some things need empirical testing. Movement abilities (ranging from just being fast, or the fly keyword, through to deep strike etc) can be game/meta dependent, and thus hard to value.

But comparing two shooting units, or assaulting units, or units which can do both, isn't that difficult. You can model their expected damage output statistically.

I mean I don't know how a Manticore stands up to a stripped down Leman Russ today. I can see why you might want both for different situations.

But I can tell you before the Guard Codex and then Chapter Approved the situation was clear. Not with context but just with maths. Manticores were miles better.

To be fair I think GW's internal balancing of codexes is better than its been in a long time - but there is still more to do.

If a unit on average dice expects to earn say 30% of its points back on a range of targets - and another expects to get back say 32% on a similar range of targets, I'd say its close enough that in a discrete game - or even a tournament - the dice will decide. People on the forums might still say X is overpowered and Y is utter trash - but its close enough.

By contrast when you have units which expect to make 40%+ of their points back, and other units which will only do 15%~ then its obvious the first is good and the first is bad. I don't think any context will change that.

 gbghg wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

It is worth making the distinction however that online games are able to collect data from all levels of play, from pro levels of play all the way down to the noobs and straight up bads. That said just because something is broken at one level of play doesn't mean its broken at another in those cases a company has to choose what level they want to balance stuff for, do you balance for high-level play or casual play? you can't really balance for both, not in all cases, not all the time.. GW on the other hand only has data from tourneys, from high-level play so to speak, which makes it somewhat more obvious what they should balance for.

There definitely is a difference between high-level play and casual so I won't argue you are wrong, but the gap really isn't that large. Part of the reason the gap isn't that large is because of forums like this. The most casual player can come find an optimal gear set for a MMO or a list for 40k just by reading what top-level player did at x tournament. While the casual might not be able to optimize it 100% it will still give him a huge advantage over some guy at his local store. The issue is if something is under-costed in Warhammer or too efficient in a MMO even at competitive play chances are that it's still broken at lower levels too. I also think its telling that these hugely successful games take data from all levels but still have balance talks with top players and analyze tournaments closely. They know that what is destroying the tournament seen might soon by crushing casuals too and possibly making people leave the game.

Guys just spoiler the fething giant walls of quotes.

Command points were not designed to be fair. They were designed specifically for each codex, and balanced around the availability to CP contained within the codex. That's why there is a disparity in the quality of stratagems between codices like IG and Blood Angels.

Seems the disconnect comes when things like soup armies leverage efficient CP forces like IG for fueling CP hungry armies like custodes and BA.

Anyways, argue on, gents. I'm out.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Command points were not designed to be fair. They were designed specifically for each codex, and balanced around the availability to CP contained within the codex. That's why there is a disparity in the quality of stratagems between codices like IG and Blood Angels.

Seems the disconnect comes when things like soup armies leverage efficient CP forces like IG for fueling CP hungry armies like custodes and BA.

Anyways, argue on, gents. I'm out.

Exactly. A quick fix to this idea of CP batteries would be to have it so that a detachment can only use it's own CP that it generated, plus the 3CP from being Battleforged can be spread out. Maybe detachments with the same sub-faction keyword (so <Ultramarines> or <Cadians> ) could benefit from the same CP pool.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Command points were not designed to be fair. They were designed specifically for each codex, and balanced around the availability to CP contained within the codex. That's why there is a disparity in the quality of stratagems between codices like IG and Blood Angels.

Seems the disconnect comes when things like soup armies leverage efficient CP forces like IG for fueling CP hungry armies like custodes and BA.

Anyways, argue on, gents. I'm out.

Exactly this.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

I might add that the games you mentioned are actually easier to balance than 40k and despite that they are still doing perpetual balancing to it. In an online game you can accrue data more efficiently and the designers control the game arena. This simplifies an incredible amount of data points one has to take into consideration. Even then they are still balancing because it is a limited amount of testers compared to thousands if not millions of players.

Add to that that Warhammer 40k is very much an analog game as they do not dictate how you should set up the play area(except for size at best). This means that a lot of the math hammer can at best be done in regards to a play area that has no cover and everyone is within combat range(regardless of actual weapon range).

Also, "they are a large company and shouldn't have this issue" is a cop out. Size and resources don't matter when you are battling thousands of variables and can only acquire a set amount of designers/testers. Size and resources are not an automatic "everything gets fixed" variables. If anything, they can create many problems on their own.