It's pretty clear that T'au and Custodes are waaay overtuned.
They've pushed Crusher and DE right down. There's some other armies popping their heads up - Necrons, Harlies, Salamanders, but that's all pretty irrelevant.
Custodes are the easiest army to get into. There's no way those points "fixes" should stand and their strats are just absurdly undercosted. The ease of entry and the superb rules just makes for a huge cluster where soon tables will be filled with them like the old GK days.
T'au feels mostly just undercosted, but the full rerolls to wound and Mont'ka need a look as well as no LOS shooting
This past weekend Custodes had a 60% WR vs even Tau.
What will GW do now? Are they going to ( try to ) hot fix these armies like DE ( and possibly fail )? Or are they going to make us wait 3 to 6 months?
It seems pretty clear to me that we can't wait for them to let us know. We need to start asking. I'm sending the message below to 40KFAQ@gwplc.com and I urge all of you to send a polite message as well.
I welcome other constructive thoughts on the matter.
And to be clear - I am not in favor of a sledgehammer.
Dear GW,
I am petitioning you on behalf of myself and other like minded players who have become upset with the poorly handled releases ( presently Custodes and T'au ). They cause far too much chaos at all levels and forms of play and I would ask that you communicate to the community how you intend to deal with these issues. I understand that factors like COVID, crazy work schedules, or poor management can exacerbate issues, but we are in the dark.
While you work through these problems I would ask that you start to consider digital rules as a method to allow you to make changes more flexibility and players less confused and stressed. Books will still be a valuable product, but perhaps we decouple points from them?
Just my thoughts. I do hope you take the time to consider this as I've had lots of fun, but I fear that could be placed in jeopardy with the loss of confidence in the releases.
Yeah, armies like custodes or harlequins being OP are always a huge problem. They're the cheapest and quickest armies to get and they have a pretty limited roster so if they crush tournaments they'd definitely crush casual metas, since lists would be pretty much the same.
Some of those OP drukhari lists have never been a problem for casual metas since they are kinda skew. I haven't seen a single player owning tons of wracks, grots and pain engines in my life and I faced multiple drukhari armies in 9th.
Nah, surely GW actually knows what they're doing. You said Ork players were complaining about nothing, and they are dling much worse than these factions, sooo....
They need to fix the game and its *present* issues ASAP, and bring it back to a state where all armies have a similar shot at winning again.
CA was a complete failure, and they need to bring a similar update based on current data, not on that from half a year ago.
Power creep and balance is so bad right now that it's starting to ruin casual and crusade. If this continues, the game will start bleeding players 7th edition style again.
GW really need to put a pause on the upcoming book releases and dial everything in them back pre release. I imagine the community would much rather have a new book released deliberately underpowered and then tuned up in the following weeks, rather than release something that's absolutely bonkers and just makes the game not fun for six months at a time.
Or, treat all new books equally. If a book is problematic and clearly overpowered, nerf it into the ground and work your way back up later.
Or don't nerf anything and let the game eat itself alive.
One possibility I've seen mentioned for the tournament scene is to not allow any books to be used until they've had their initial FAQ/ Of course, a lot of the data for that FAQ comes from tournament games, so that my be a bit problematic.
In general, GW need to do better and quickly. We're starting to lose players locally because the power levels are so far out of whack. These aren't meta-chasing tournament players either. They're just becoming disheartened by the mismatches in power level and even some of those playing Tau and Custodes are feeling it because they realise their success has very little do with anything other than the ridiculousness of their Codices.
Slipspace wrote: One possibility I've seen mentioned for the tournament scene is to not allow any books to be used until they've had their initial FAQ/ Of course, a lot of the data for that FAQ comes from tournament games, so that my be a bit problematic.
In general, GW need to do better and quickly. We're starting to lose players locally because the power levels are so far out of whack. These aren't meta-chasing tournament players either. They're just becoming disheartened by the mismatches in power level and even some of those playing Tau and Custodes are feeling it because they realise their success has very little do with anything other than the ridiculousness of their Codices.
Slipspace wrote: One possibility I've seen mentioned for the tournament scene is to not allow any books to be used until they've had their initial FAQ/ Of course, a lot of the data for that FAQ comes from tournament games, so that my be a bit problematic.
In general, GW need to do better and quickly. We're starting to lose players locally because the power levels are so far out of whack. These aren't meta-chasing tournament players either. They're just becoming disheartened by the mismatches in power level and even some of those playing Tau and Custodes are feeling it because they realise their success has very little do with anything other than the ridiculousness of their Codices.
Have they tried playing Crusade?
Nope. In general, we prefer playing our own campaigns to Crusade. The general impression of the Crusade rules are that they are more bloat on an already bloated system. While they do somewhat change the parameters of a "successful" game by giving players different victory conditions they don't really mitigate the core problem of the huge power imbalance in the books turning a lot of games into foregone conclusions. While it's nice t play a game and further an Agenda even after losing it still sucks to feel like you never really had a chance of winning the actual mission.
We do need people to make GW aware via all avenues of social media that releasing an ever escalating set of powerful codexes is not clever game design.
I think the big tournament organisers may need to shame GW into action by comping books.
-200 point handicap to Custodes (mixed or pure) and Tau,
+200 point benefit to Death Guard (pure), Imperial Guard (pure), Space Marines (pure Fists, Ravenguard, Salamanders, Ultramarines). +100 point benefit to Sisters.
See how that changes results. After 2 weeks maybe add a couple more books to the comp system. As new factions should drop to below 40% and Crusher Stampede will probably jump up (but by how much).
If Custodes or Tau are still dominating with a -200 handicap then it will make GW look like total chumps.
From a casual perspective I don't mind these things. Didn't mind the ad-mech and DE power creep either. I rarely do "pick-up games" anymore since our gaming group (8 people) typically plays at my home rather than a lgs.
However, if I were to get back into the LGS scene and was looking for a pick-up game, I would likely just turn down the game offer with anyone who was bringing an over-tuned "meta" list.
Games Workshop rules have always been a bumbled mess of power scaling and debauchery. This power meta culture can only be solved by the community. If you don't want to see these lists casually, then refuse to play against them. The problem will self-correct.
*This advice is how to prevent these lists from running away in the casual/narrative/non-comp environments. The comp meta can suffer for all I care, they encouraged this WAAC culture.
We do need people to make GW aware via all avenues of social media that releasing an ever escalating set of powerful codexes is not clever game design.
Depends. If it gives GW bigger profit then that's good game design. It accomplishes goal of the designers.
Slipspace wrote: While they do somewhat change the parameters of a "successful" game by giving players different victory conditions they don't really mitigate the core problem of the huge power imbalance in the books turning a lot of games into foregone conclusions.
I agree with this. In addition, recent codices also have added a problem of people not even being able to complete any agendas because an overtuned codex has blown them off the table T2. Loosing twice in one crusade game is even worse than getting curb-stomped 100:0 in a GT game.
Does anyone else think it's scary how many posters who tend to be at each other's throats agree in this thread?
Slipspace wrote: While they do somewhat change the parameters of a "successful" game by giving players different victory conditions they don't really mitigate the core problem of the huge power imbalance in the books turning a lot of games into foregone conclusions.
I agree with this. In addition, recent codices also have added a problem of people not even being able to complete any agendas because an overtuned codex has blown them off the table T2. Loosing twice in one crusade game is even worse than getting curb-stomped 100:0 in a GT game.
Does anyone else think it's scary how many posters who tend to be at each other's throats agree in this thread?
GW will alienate everyone eventually. Its just that some of us have a head start.
We do need people to make GW aware via all avenues of social media that releasing an ever escalating set of powerful codexes is not clever game design.
Depends. If it gives GW bigger profit then that's good game design. It accomplishes goal of the designers.
It really doesn't depend. Bad game design may be popular, successful or profitable and thus good business, but it's still bad game design.
I forgot CSM, they probably need to be comped too. But I would be tempted to do it on a legion by legion basis, just to see if +400 Word Bearers still have a sub 50% win rate.
Yeah, it might be good business while being bad game design. I've seen this with other businesses though, what they are currently doing is turning "goodwill" value into cash. There is an inertia to this, but eventually the goodwill runs out and you stop being able to cash it in. It can then take a while to re-earn the goodwill you previously had.
It seems pretty clear to me that we can't wait for them to let us know. We need to start asking. I'm sending the message below to 40KFAQ@gwplc.com and I urge all of you to send a polite message as well.
Just want to say I appreciate this constructive approach to fixing issues. It's far too common to see people howling into the online void about things they don't like, but still don't do anything to get them fixed.
In the spirit of constructive criticism, I would suggest providing specific data in support of the claim that the releases are "poorly handled" as this is more likely to result in action. I haven't looked, but I assume there extremely skewed win rates for these factions in the last few weeks?
I fully agree that they need a different model of managing rules, however a change like this is only realistically going to happen following a new edition. There will be active projects and supplier contracts in place for the remaining codexes (or other books) in the pipeline, and plans like those won't be changed on a whim. By all means we can still ask for improvements, but if we want any short-medium term improvements too then I'd highly recommend clearly stressing an overhaul of the Chapter Approved model:
The delay in physically printing updated points plus gathering the required data means GW are effectively updating a game that no longer exists.
Balance issues that surface too late for the CA printing deadline result in either ongoing disruption or emergency balance dataslate fixes as a stopgap measure.
A common opinion in 40k communities is that CA Nachmund was poor value for money and most refused to purchase it.
The bi-annual points changes should ideally be worked on much closer to final release and distributed via PDF download.
That's something they could still potentially change in time for this Summer, and if not still before the next edition.
Slipspace wrote: While they do somewhat change the parameters of a "successful" game by giving players different victory conditions they don't really mitigate the core problem of the huge power imbalance in the books turning a lot of games into foregone conclusions.
I agree with this. In addition, recent codices also have added a problem of people not even being able to complete any agendas because an overtuned codex has blown them off the table T2. Loosing twice in one crusade game is even worse than getting curb-stomped 100:0 in a GT game.
Does anyone else think it's scary how many posters who tend to be at each other's throats agree in this thread?
GW will alienate everyone eventually. Its just that some of us have a head start.
Seems a bit doompillish for me.
I think part of the problem right now is a lot of what we're seeing release-wise right now is stuff that was finished during Covid and likely got far less play testing and time working on it collectively than it should have.
Slipspace wrote: While they do somewhat change the parameters of a "successful" game by giving players different victory conditions they don't really mitigate the core problem of the huge power imbalance in the books turning a lot of games into foregone conclusions.
I agree with this. In addition, recent codices also have added a problem of people not even being able to complete any agendas because an overtuned codex has blown them off the table T2. Loosing twice in one crusade game is even worse than getting curb-stomped 100:0 in a GT game.
Does anyone else think it's scary how many posters who tend to be at each other's throats agree in this thread?
GW will alienate everyone eventually. Its just that some of us have a head start.
At least until 10th is out and everyone comes running back because "my friends are all playing it again. They said GW has changed!"
Jidmah wrote:...and bring it back to a state where all armies have a similar shot at winning again.
When was that?
Afrodactyl wrote:I imagine the community would much rather have a new book released deliberately underpowered and then tuned up in the following weeks, rather than release something that's absolutely bonkers and just makes the game not fun for six months at a time.
That means they don't get the sales spike from something being the new shiny and OP at the same time.
As a public company; GW's first obligation is to make dividends for their shareholders, not what the community that makes a hobby out of their products would like.
GW has no intention of making a balanced game. If they did they would have with 8th edition.
They will continue to drive sales at the expense of their games for as long as people keep buying into it.
If you don't like those practices there are plenty of companies that make good games (and that will cost you less to play).
I jumped out when the 8th codexes were are balance shitshow too and have not regretted it.
Still have more hobby than time.
Not sure if it fixes anything from a balance perspective, but I do like the change in the Custodes one so Custodes and SoS units count as the same faction for detachment-building purposes. Mind you, this initial FAQ/errata release was unlikely to do balance fixes, and instead be mechanical fixes they've realised since the books went to print (or were released).
Hecaton wrote: Nah, surely GW actually knows what they're doing. You said Ork players were complaining about nothing, and they are dling much worse than these factions, sooo....
Don't put words in my mouth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: Nah, balance for 40k has never been better. Have you tried playing with more terrain? You're probably not using enough terrain.
It still plays very well and the armies in question don't need massive nerfs. They just need prompt attention.
Jidmah wrote:...and bring it back to a state where all armies have a similar shot at winning again.
When was that?
Afrodactyl wrote:I imagine the community would much rather have a new book released deliberately underpowered and then tuned up in the following weeks, rather than release something that's absolutely bonkers and just makes the game not fun for six months at a time.
That means they don't get the sales spike from something being the new shiny and OP at the same time.
As a public company; GW's first obligation is to make dividends for their shareholders, not what the community that makes a hobby out of their products would like.
GW has no intention of making a balanced game. If they did they would have with 8th edition.
They will continue to drive sales at the expense of their games for as long as people keep buying into it.
If you don't like those practices there are plenty of companies that make good games (and that will cost you less to play).
I jumped out when the 8th codexes were are balance shitshow too and have not regretted it.
Still have more hobby than time.
as far as when that was, 8th edition index was in my opinion about as balanced as it has been ever, but even then there were some factions that were ahead/behind, just much better than say now.
to the OP I think GW's saying they will do quarterly updates might help though i think it means every quarter a new book might move to the top as previous top books are put in line. hopefully people keep emailign respectful messages to GW with balance issues and GW listens incorporating feedback into their updates. I still think balance would be better achieved through making games logging a thing and doign monthly updates via algorythm for points but i doubt GW will go that method any time soon sadly, and meat bags (people) are terrible at balancing numbers, until they transfer points to machine learning we will never actually get balance.
No. Some good FAQ clarifications at least (not going to complain too much about those - bit slow would be the main grumble). But they don't really change the balance of the armies.
It just feels like we've hit the clownfiesta stage of the edition where they throw out whatever because there's going to be something of a reset and therefore it doesn't matter. Although I guess you could argue that started with DE a year ago.
Its impossible to believe these books were playtested - and if they were (with some claiming the Custodes points drops were on the back of playtesters saying they were weak) it raises questions about that process.
Its a shame really because I quite like 9th's base rules, and I think if every codex had been sort of comparable with the Necron book on release it could have been a nice edition. But GW can't seem to stop themselves. And my worry is that the playtesters are now cheering them on.
Its a meme at this point - but if Eldar are the Daemons in 7th edition WHFB codex, I really wouldn't be surprised. Although I've only looked at the abilities rather than seen any points - so things could all be overcosted. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Tyel wrote: It just feels like we've hit the clownfiesta stage of the edition where they throw out whatever because there's going to be something of a reset and therefore it doesn't matter. Although I guess you could argue that started with DE a year ago.
Its impossible to believe these books were playtested - and if they were (with some claiming the Custodes points drops were on the back of playtesters saying they were weak) it raises questions about that process.
Its a shame really because I quite like 9th's base rules, and I think if every codex had been sort of comparable with the Necron book on release it could have been a nice edition. But GW can't seem to stop themselves. And my worry is that the playtesters are now cheering them on.
Its a meme at this point - but if Eldar are the Daemons in 7th edition WHFB codex, I really wouldn't be surprised. Although I've only looked at the abilities rather than seen any points - so things could all be overcosted. But I wouldn't bet on it.
It may not be surprising based on my flair, but I'm not ready to assert that we've hit the cascading point of no return in terms of new book power level. Yes, Custodes and Tau are pretty busted right now, but Daedalus is right, a few targeted nerfs may be all we need to rein them in (or not, as the case may be; people said that about Dark Eldar also...). But GSC seems strong without being too strong, and the Eldar leaks have had lots more restrictions than we were expecting at first. Yes, it'll still be pretty easy to run lots of Bright Lances, but a lot of the other boogeymen (JSJ via Battle Focus, crazy unkillable Wraiths, OP mobs of Aspect Warriors) either don't seem to be there (Battle Focus looks a little eh to me honestly! Besides for things like Warp Spiders) or are shut down by unit size restrictions and one-per-game Exarch powers (think Dark Reapers, Shining Spears). Plus, like you said, points are still a knob that is twiddle-able. Anyway, this could all be atomic-grade cope but I am optimistic Eldar won't be nuts.
as far as when that was, 8th edition index was in my opinion about as balanced as it has been ever, but even then there were some factions that were ahead/behind, just much better than say now.
Those were a good few months! I had high hopes going into 8th edition.
It was ruined as soon as codexes were released though; proving that GW would not balance their game even if given the opportunity.
It became clear to me then that GW had no intention of making a good game, it's just a reason to buy their miniatures that can be manipulated for profit.
alextroy wrote: I have to wonder if they could fix Custodoes by just rescinding the unit cost correction PDF and going with the Codex unit cost?
Honestly? Probably not unless they have a lot of bikes. Trajann went down 10 and bikes went down 5. You might push a model or two out of the list.
The other end of it is transhuman and turning off rerolls for 1CP among some other things. I don't have enough experience against the new book to elaborate further though so I welcome other points of view.
Tyel wrote: It just feels like we've hit the clownfiesta stage of the edition where they throw out whatever because there's going to be something of a reset and therefore it doesn't matter. Although I guess you could argue that started with DE a year ago.
Its impossible to believe these books were playtested - and if they were (with some claiming the Custodes points drops were on the back of playtesters saying they were weak) it raises questions about that process.
Its a shame really because I quite like 9th's base rules, and I think if every codex had been sort of comparable with the Necron book on release it could have been a nice edition. But GW can't seem to stop themselves. And my worry is that the playtesters are now cheering them on.
Its a meme at this point - but if Eldar are the Daemons in 7th edition WHFB codex, I really wouldn't be surprised. Although I've only looked at the abilities rather than seen any points - so things could all be overcosted. But I wouldn't bet on it.
It may not be surprising based on my flair, but I'm not ready to assert that we've hit the cascading point of no return in terms of new book power level. Yes, Custodes and Tau are pretty busted right now, but Daedalus is right, a few targeted nerfs may be all we need to rein them in (or not, as the case may be; people said that about Dark Eldar also...). But GSC seems strong without being too strong, and the Eldar leaks have had lots more restrictions than we were expecting at first. Yes, it'll still be pretty easy to run lots of Bright Lances, but a lot of the other boogeymen (JSJ via Battle Focus, crazy unkillable Wraiths, OP mobs of Aspect Warriors) either don't seem to be there (Battle Focus looks a little eh to me honestly! Besides for things like Warp Spiders) or are shut down by unit size restrictions and one-per-game Exarch powers (think Dark Reapers, Shining Spears). Plus, like you said, points are still a knob that is twiddle-able. Anyway, this could all be atomic-grade cope but I am optimistic Eldar won't be nuts.
Okay so you nerf Custodes and they're no longer busted. Then the Tyranids book comes out and THEY'RE busted. So they get nerfed. Then the Guard codex comes out and THAT is busted. And round and round it goes forever and ever until the players get sick of it, leave and then GW goes "11th Ed is the MOST PLAYTESTED EDITION EVER FOR REAL THIS TIME (buy these 2 €59 books and subscribe to the monthly payment app and thess bi-annual rules updates and 4 supplements to find out how!" and everyone comes running back and the cycle starts over again.
Daedalus's letter would probably be better if it included a withdrawal of financial support, rather than just asking politely. Money is the only thing GW cares about after all.
alextroy wrote: I have to wonder if they could fix Custodoes by just rescinding the unit cost correction PDF and going with the Codex unit cost?
Wouldn't be enough IMO. I think they need bigger points rises than that and there's still a problem of many strats being very low cost for what they do. The EC Shieldhost is also clearly the best, which needs looking at.
These are the win rates against them for this past weekend to show who is capable of beating them.
Sisters and Eldar seem to be able to take on Tau.
Do note I only have one week of data here so I wouldn't draw any hard conclusions. The past two weeks combined favors Custodes a lot more so people have made some headway learning to fight them. Last weekend Tau also lost handily to Nurgle, Khorne, Slaanesh, and CW. CK have a 44% while IK have 19% against them.
alextroy wrote: I have to wonder if they could fix Custodoes by just rescinding the unit cost correction PDF and going with the Codex unit cost?
Honestly? Probably not unless they have a lot of bikes. Trajann went down 10 and bikes went down 5. You might push a model or two out of the list.
The other end of it is transhuman and turning off rerolls for 1CP among some other things. I don't have enough experience against the new book to elaborate further though so I welcome other points of view.
Yeah, Trajann needs to go up quite a bit, and probably the bikes.
It's really the strats that need to go up though, that's where a significant amount of the power is. The EC and at least one, if not both, of the defensive strats need to go up to 2 CP. Or at least make the Defensive strats 2 CP for Bikes all the time.
I don't think there needs to be a ton of points updates across the board. Start with the major offenders like Trajann and the strats, and go from there. We don't need to dumpster the army outright. With such a small model count, it'd be very easy to go too far.
Tau on the other hand, I have no idea. They feel more like Ad Mech or DE where if you nerf one thing, another is going to pop up.
Sim-Life wrote: Okay so you nerf Custodes and they're no longer busted. Then the Tyranids book comes out and THEY'RE busted. So they get nerfed. Then the Guard codex comes out and THAT is busted. And round and round it goes forever and ever until the players get sick of it, leave and then GW goes "11th Ed is the MOST PLAYTESTED EDITION EVER FOR REAL THIS TIME
There is the potential for other books to restart the clock. There isn't much we can do about that - they're in the pipeline and affected by whatever mismanaged process they were made, but not every book is nuts.
The difference now is we have outlets with 6 month points and 3 month slates, but those are insufficient to deal with these immediate problems.
I'll be continuing to apply pressure weekly. Each successive week without communication or change I'll ramp up my position.
GW tried their best at killing my interest in the game with the last "balance update" to Death Guard. At this point I just don't know what crazy plan they are following.
Eldarsif wrote: GW tried their best at killing my interest in the game with the last "balance update" to Death Guard. At this point I just don't know what crazy plan they are following.
i heard they're gonna hotfix necrons and increase their cost, they really overdid it with the last buffs to them
Eldarsif wrote: GW tried their best at killing my interest in the game with the last "balance update" to Death Guard. At this point I just don't know what crazy plan they are following.
i heard they're gonna hotfix necrons and increase their cost, they really overdid it with the last buffs to them
/s
On a more serious note Necrons hit 52% WR on 141 games. Without the abyssmal performance against Custodes and Tau they'd be real contenders for a strong army ( over half their games were against these two ).
Sim-Life wrote: Okay so you nerf Custodes and they're no longer busted. Then the Tyranids book comes out and THEY'RE busted. So they get nerfed. Then the Guard codex comes out and THAT is busted. And round and round it goes forever and ever until the players get sick of it, leave and then GW goes "11th Ed is the MOST PLAYTESTED EDITION EVER FOR REAL THIS TIME
There is the potential for other books to restart the clock. There isn't much we can do about that - they're in the pipeline and affected by whatever mismanaged process they were made, but not every book is nuts.
The difference now is we have outlets with 6 month points and 3 month slates, but those are insufficient to deal with these immediate problems.
I'll be continuing to apply pressure weekly. Each successive week without communication or change I'll ramp up my position.
If only you had ‘ramped up’ your position for the last year of admech and drukhari, maybe I would think this was something more than a specific army reaction.
The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time
Aenar wrote: The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time
They got a subfaction with FOUR traits. I hate this rules team.
Aenar wrote: The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time
books are not only play tested against one army. its not like custodes vs only the new eldar book. unfortunately most of the playtesting is farmed out to volunteers from the tournament community so you often see codexes getting adjustments based on what the current tournament winning armies are. so custodes was built facing dark eldar, admech, freeboota orks and a few other builds mostly
Eldarsif wrote: GW tried their best at killing my interest in the game with the last "balance update" to Death Guard. At this point I just don't know what crazy plan they are following.
The point was to fix the faction's internal balance (at the expense of external balance) to sell more things in the line.
I have a decent chunk of DA models that I could repair and paint, but I just can't imagine myself ever coming back to 40k at this stage. I came back to these forums around 8th after playing a few casual games with the new system. I followed the change to 9th and the tournament scene, but I just can't see how this game as it stands is enjoyable.
It feels like it's time to sell the models as a lot and jump ship to Battletech.
Tyel wrote: It just feels like we've hit the clownfiesta stage of the edition where they throw out whatever because there's going to be something of a reset and therefore it doesn't matter. Although I guess you could argue that started with DE a year ago.
Its impossible to believe these books were playtested - and if they were (with some claiming the Custodes points drops were on the back of playtesters saying they were weak) it raises questions about that process.
Its a shame really because I quite like 9th's base rules, and I think if every codex had been sort of comparable with the Necron book on release it could have been a nice edition. But GW can't seem to stop themselves. And my worry is that the playtesters are now cheering them on.
Its a meme at this point - but if Eldar are the Daemons in 7th edition WHFB codex, I really wouldn't be surprised. Although I've only looked at the abilities rather than seen any points - so things could all be overcosted. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Again, I reiterate my point that books coming out now would be products of GW working remote from Covid. We're seeing the least playtested and most poorly coordinated books coming out now.
It feels like it's time to sell the models as a lot and jump ship to Battletech.
I moved across country last year and did just that. I had a fire sale. Some of the stuff I couldn't even GIVE away so I threw it in the dumpster.
As a long time Battletech player, my time has been much more enjoyable but I feel that is because there is no massive tournament scene over there and players aren't stuck to some meta and tournament standard so the games are all different and enjoyable for someone like me.
Tyel wrote: It just feels like we've hit the clownfiesta stage of the edition where they throw out whatever because there's going to be something of a reset and therefore it doesn't matter. Although I guess you could argue that started with DE a year ago.
Its impossible to believe these books were playtested - and if they were (with some claiming the Custodes points drops were on the back of playtesters saying they were weak) it raises questions about that process.
Its a shame really because I quite like 9th's base rules, and I think if every codex had been sort of comparable with the Necron book on release it could have been a nice edition. But GW can't seem to stop themselves. And my worry is that the playtesters are now cheering them on.
Its a meme at this point - but if Eldar are the Daemons in 7th edition WHFB codex, I really wouldn't be surprised. Although I've only looked at the abilities rather than seen any points - so things could all be overcosted. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Again, I reiterate my point that books coming out now would be products of GW working remote from Covid. We're seeing the least playtested and most poorly coordinated books coming out now.
Your point would have merit if we hadn't seen this nonsense every single edition for the companies lifespan. I can not blame COVID when GW has been able to screw everything up without outside influence for the past 30+ years. Plus, their play testing team is probably a small group of the same people that have tested all the other codexs to date and I would hazard a guess that they didn't stop play testing (AKA setting up ridiculous White Dwarf batreps,) during lock downs. Why is it so hard to admit for the 30+ years of evidence that GW just doesn't care about making the game fun or playable as long as they sell their "premium" product?
Well.. once again we realise that all books for factions and their rules should've been released at the START of a edition in order to finetune it. ALAS that would mean no more new shiny release book, etc.
Also yikes those numbers , sooooo many tau and bannanas.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: It may not be surprising based on my flair, but I'm not ready to assert that we've hit the cascading point of no return in terms of new book power level. Yes, Custodes and Tau are pretty busted right now, but Daedalus is right, a few targeted nerfs may be all we need to rein them in (or not, as the case may be; people said that about Dark Eldar also...). But GSC seems strong without being too strong, and the Eldar leaks have had lots more restrictions than we were expecting at first. Yes, it'll still be pretty easy to run lots of Bright Lances, but a lot of the other boogeymen (JSJ via Battle Focus, crazy unkillable Wraiths, OP mobs of Aspect Warriors) either don't seem to be there (Battle Focus looks a little eh to me honestly! Besides for things like Warp Spiders) or are shut down by unit size restrictions and one-per-game Exarch powers (think Dark Reapers, Shining Spears). Plus, like you said, points are still a knob that is twiddle-able. Anyway, this could all be atomic-grade cope but I am optimistic Eldar won't be nuts.
I've seen a few people saying "don't worry they can fix this with points adjustments", which is a technically true statement. Unfortunately, "they won't fix this with points adjustments because of the way they do the points adjustments" is also true.
If they are putting out a physical points book every six months, the next set of points for the book most likely will have already been set in stone and sent to the publisher shortly after the last book released (maybe even before). They will probably nerf Dark Eldar and Grey Knights (who were on top before Custodes and Tau came out) while throwing out some buffs to Eldar and Tyranids "based on playtesting feedback" despite those books probably dominating the meta in the months leading up the physical release of the book.
Also, in two chapter approveds so far we've seen very little "buff up the bad actions with better points" action. Necrons finally have had a partial points buff (some units are now probably too good, while others were ignored) but Space Marines were largely untouched while Death Guard got the full clownfiesta flying circus treatment of nerfs rather than buffs to a woeful faction. By the time the next chapter approved is due out several 9th edition factions out of Sisters, Ad Mech, Orks, TSons, Grey Knights will be in the same position as Death Guard were last month and will be in need of points buffs.
From the sounds of it GSC seem quite powerful into other 9th edition codexes excluding Custodes and Tau. They can murder Death Guard, Sisters, Space Marines, AdMech etc. I've not had a chance into them with TSons yet but suspect they will be able to cleanly trade up with overwatch denial and fight last into two units per turn and can probably do the same into GK. Orks maybe with the shooting they have might have a chance? They seem very strong into anyone who wants to hit them in combat.
This remote working excuse seems a bit fishy to me. Do they chisel all the rules in stone tablets at the Nottingham HQ or are they stored digitally do you think?
Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
by several you mean the clear powerspikes provided by adeptus mechanicus and drukhari which only now got overtaken by custards and Tau? Which seem to have gotten Quite the population for their new iterations ?
There are quite a few dexes out there that can probably spike this even more.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
I do love how the thread started as raising constructive feedback to GW in regards to people's concerns about game balance only for it to devolve into doompilling 40k, selling stuff off to play Battletech and immediately saying that GW will only do this stuff again.
Is this stuff bad? Yes. But god the game has been so much worse in the past and this is nothing like invisible unkillable deathstars from 7th or equally nonsense things we saw in the past. These problems are problems, but they're not "need to reboot the entire game to fix them" levels of problems.
The other end of it is transhuman and turning off rerolls for 1CP among some other things. I don't have enough experience against the new book to elaborate further though so I welcome other points of view.
Hmm. Not enough experience to talk about them, but still enough to write to GW demanding they fix them....
As for what's next? Wait a week or two for the Eldar codex to drop & you'll have something new to lose your minds over.
caladancid wrote: If only you had ‘ramped up’ your position for the last year of admech and drukhari, maybe I would think this was something more than a specific army reaction.
1) GW took steps periodically to deal with those armies
2) Those armies were more difficult to access and Custodes are potentially a much worse win rate on a more accessible army
3) Dataslate and 6 month CA were not set on a timetable
4) I own neither Admech nor DE
My concern is now that #3 exists that #1 won't happen and whether or not #2 makes it even more problematic.
Can I go into my local store with my Thousand Sons, the rubric marines that I enjoy playing, and not get punted in the balls and put through a table?
I hear thats not really possible without my opponent taking like half my points or something. Which has been the story I've had to endure since 3.5.
So in that regard, if I can't play the army I want to play without getting suplexed through a window by virtue of liking the army I like, the game is still not working.
It doesn't matter if the eldar were crotch chopping people pre 8th. More broken is still broken. Less broken is still broken.
If the answer to play 40k remains that I have to sell off old armies to buy whatever works today (and not really armies as a whole, but subset optimized versions of that army) and that is the acceptable answer every time they adjust something, then its still broken.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
by several you mean the clear powerspikes provided by adeptus mechanicus and drukhari which only now got overtaken by custards and Tau? Which seem to have gotten Quite the population for their new iterations ?
There are quite a few dexes out there that can probably spike this even more.
I think it’s clear that GW needs to do much better with writing rules. That being said, once you called them custards any thought that you are objective went away.
Dysartes wrote: Question about your Custodes data, Daed - how're the Custodes managing to win 52% of games... against the Custodes?
There's always some quirks depending on whether or not a tournament organizer screwed something up. Here is looks like a couple of games got reported as a loss for both P1 and P2. Sometimes is subfaction shenanigans though I try to smooth that out by assigning a super faction to most stuff.
Can I go into my local store with my Thousand Sons, the rubric marines that I enjoy playing, and not get punted in the balls and put through a table?
I hear thats not really possible without my opponent taking like half my points or something. Which has been the story I've had to endure since 3.5.
So in that regard, if I can't play the army I want to play without getting suplexed through a window by virtue of liking the army I like, the game is still not working.
It doesn't matter if the eldar were crotch chopping people pre 8th. More broken is still broken. Less broken is still broken.
If the answer to play 40k remains that I have to sell off old armies to buy whatever works today (and not really armies as a whole, but subset optimized versions of that army) and that is the acceptable answer every time they adjust something, then its still broken.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
No it isn't and I can't help it if you can't be bothered to actually read my posts and ask questions instead of making half-assed assumptions based on your own personal bs.
The design and release philosophy seems to err on the side of overpowered on release, to be adjusted back to the average post release, especially obvious when there is a new model line involved. From a business perspective this makes a lot of sense and doesn't seem likely to change.
The knock-on problem this creates is that by the time things are adjusted back to the average, the winning strategies, units, and tactics have been exhaustively cataloged, which creates a cookie cutter formula that's easily followed for better than average success. This tends to leave the less obvious armies at a disadvantage because the process takes place over a significantly longer period of time, if at all.
It doesn't seem like GW really has an incentive to change this approach.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
I want to be very clear that this isn't chicken little. I don't think the sky is falling like some other posters in the thread assert. If I've given the impression otherwise that was not my intention.
I think, however, that there are issues in the pipeline that GW needs to address without making us wait 3 to 6 months.
I don't feel that there is anything wrong with voicing that concern even if others like to go off the deep end with it.
The other end of it is transhuman and turning off rerolls for 1CP among some other things. I don't have enough experience against the new book to elaborate further though so I welcome other points of view.
Hmm. Not enough experience to talk about them, but still enough to write to GW demanding they fix them....
As for what's next? Wait a week or two for the Eldar codex to drop & you'll have something new to lose your minds over.
I have experience. Perhaps more than most people here ( considering half posting don't play and just like to dog pile issues... ) outside actual Custodes players, but they might be biased and the data is quite painful. There's always an initial learning curve, but I think we learned the lesson with DE and their rise to fame.
And unlike others I am willing to listen to counterpoints if you feel like Custodes or Tau are not problematic.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
I want to be very clear that this isn't chicken little. I don't think the sky is falling like some other posters in the thread assert. If I've given the impression otherwise that was not my intention.
I think, however, that there are issues in the pipeline that GW needs to address without making us wait 3 to 6 months.
I don't feel that there is anything wrong with voicing that concern even if others like to go off the deep end with it.
The other end of it is transhuman and turning off rerolls for 1CP among some other things. I don't have enough experience against the new book to elaborate further though so I welcome other points of view.
Hmm. Not enough experience to talk about them, but still enough to write to GW demanding they fix them....
As for what's next? Wait a week or two for the Eldar codex to drop & you'll have something new to lose your minds over.
I have experience. Perhaps more than most people here ( considering half posting don't play and just like to dog pile issues... ) outside actual Custodes players, but they might be biased and the data is quite painful. There's always an initial learning curve, but I think we learned the lesson with DE and their rise to fame.
And unlike others I am willing to listen to counterpoints if you feel like Custodes or Tau are not problematic.
Every time something is too strong people immediately scream that this current thing is the most broken thing the game has ever seen ever....I guess it's a natural reaction, but demonstrably false.
I'm an active custodes player however and I say point nerfs are in order. Trajann is way too cheap and the bikes and salvo launchers need to go up a bit as well. Id also give wardens and terminators a slight bump in points. One thing I'm against is touching the strats too much, a very big portion of custodes survivability is now tied to the stratagems and touching them too much can exponentially hurt the faction. I'm not saying don't do anything with them, but gw needs to be careful.
Can I go into my local store with my Thousand Sons, the rubric marines that I enjoy playing, and not get punted in the balls and put through a table?
I hear thats not really possible without my opponent taking like half my points or something. Which has been the story I've had to endure since 3.5.
So in that regard, if I can't play the army I want to play without getting suplexed through a window by virtue of liking the army I like, the game is still not working.
It doesn't matter if the eldar were crotch chopping people pre 8th. More broken is still broken. Less broken is still broken.
If the answer to play 40k remains that I have to sell off old armies to buy whatever works today (and not really armies as a whole, but subset optimized versions of that army) and that is the acceptable answer every time they adjust something, then its still broken.
Bit of an odd whine considering TSons have been strong (but not the very top faction) since their new book in August. Six months of slapping 8th edition books, Death Guard, Necrons, Space Marines, etc about and some good games into a lot of other books with just a few tough match ups at the very top of the meta. With Exalted Sorcerers, Rubrics and Scarabs being the three of the best units in the book.
caladancid wrote: I think it’s clear that GW needs to do much better with writing rules. That being said, once you called them custards any thought that you are objective went away.
Plenty of people call Custodes "custards" that's nothing new.
No it isn't and I can't help it if you can't be bothered to actually read my posts and ask questions instead of making half-assed assumptions based on your own personal bs.
Can I go into my local store with my Thousand Sons, the rubric marines that I enjoy playing, and not get punted in the balls and put through a table?
I hear thats not really possible without my opponent taking like half my points or something. Which has been the story I've had to endure since 3.5.
So in that regard, if I can't play the army I want to play without getting suplexed through a window by virtue of liking the army I like, the game is still not working.
It doesn't matter if the eldar were crotch chopping people pre 8th. More broken is still broken. Less broken is still broken.
If the answer to play 40k remains that I have to sell off old armies to buy whatever works today (and not really armies as a whole, but subset optimized versions of that army) and that is the acceptable answer every time they adjust something, then its still broken.
What? Thousand sons are good now. I don't get why you think they suck.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
by several you mean the clear powerspikes provided by adeptus mechanicus and drukhari which only now got overtaken by custards and Tau? Which seem to have gotten Quite the population for their new iterations ?
There are quite a few dexes out there that can probably spike this even more.
I think it’s clear that GW needs to do much better with writing rules. That being said, once you called them custards any thought that you are objective went away.
custards? Custard, normally over here we call them senfbubbies. Custard boys. ? or am i translating something wrong?
Edit: Nvm custard is a form of pudding, i meant mustard
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there Over here trying to ask people to not bring competitive lists is seen as insulting by a great many players in the pool and generates a lot of anger and drama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What? Thousand sons are good now. I don't get why you think they suck.
I haven't actively played since 7th ed shortly after their book came out and they were face dropped unless you were running Magnus and Mortarion (lol...) combo. I have no idea if they suck today. I was told they still suck if you're running a rubric themed Thousand Sons (the reason why most people would choose that legion I'd think).
If rubrics are suddenly able to show up to open game day and not get destroyed by the tournament hotness then awesome. I was under the assumption that is definitely not the case.
And if it is the case then cool. My point stands that if you can't play a faction you enjoy without it being a horrible negative experience getting trounced by busted and OP deck building elements, its not a good game and needs revisited (often over the past many years the answer is simply "just dont play bad factions then and make sure you do your research and play one of the optimal lists".
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
auticus wrote: This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Europe, including the UK, is the same way they just won't cop to it.
Tiberias wrote: Every time something is too strong people immediately scream that this current thing is the most broken thing the game has ever seen ever....I guess it's a natural reaction, but demonstrably false.
I'm an active custodes player however and I say point nerfs are in order. Trajann is way too cheap and the bikes and salvo launchers need to go up a bit as well. Id also give wardens and terminators a slight bump in points. One thing I'm against is touching the strats too much, a very big portion of custodes survivability is now tied to the stratagems and touching them too much can exponentially hurt the faction. I'm not saying don't do anything with them, but gw needs to be careful.
I'd rather see light touches as well. Personally I think the approach GW took with DE was the correct approach even if it didn't solve the problem immediately as the issue can be complex as I'll try and illustrate below.
My particular thrust here is to get GW to communicate with us and make sure they're addressing things in a timely manner and not to specify specific changes or to enforce the will of the communities ideas of balance.
The thing with Trajann is he seems to come with Master and Champion traits considering the others don't really do much for him except maybe Peerless. Master means you're picking up 5 CP regen easily plus 1 for Trajann himself and then 5 per round putting them at 23CP.
This exacerbates the cost of strats. This trait doesn't need to be tied to Trajann either so bumping his points doesn't necessarily clear us from the problem and I don't see GW changing the trait. If Trajann got forced out people would pick up the trait and a dreadnought and dish out rr1s to wound that way.
Custodes have a 1CP interrupt when on an objective ( which will be most of the time ). Clearly it should be 1CP, because otherwise why would it exist, but with such a large pool of CP and superb melee it's just a straight auto use every time it can be. So in this position changing the CP doesn't make sense.
caladancid wrote: Does nobody here remember the Leafblower armies? Or how Eldar used to be pre 8th? Nothing in this edition so far comes close to that broken, at least now there are several armies that can compete with each other.
Not an excuse really for GWs very bad rules writing, but honestly this chicken little stuff about Custodes and Tau is ridic.
I want to be very clear that this isn't chicken little. I don't think the sky is falling like some other posters in the thread assert. If I've given the impression otherwise that was not my intention.
I think, however, that there are issues in the pipeline that GW needs to address without making us wait 3 to 6 months.
I don't feel that there is anything wrong with voicing that concern even if others like to go off the deep end with it...
For the sky to be falling releases that are this unbalanced would have to be unusual. It looks a little unusual because we have published data about competitive winrates now that we didn't before the last few years, but if "release unbalanced army->immediately dominates" did any damage to GW's business they would have noticed sometime in the last ten years of releasing unbalanced armies.
i just don't believe the playerbase in the states is that toxic, for sure there are people that don't play in stores as much that you can reach in local facebook groups or something.
Showing up to my store with high powered list outside of an actual tournament would be seen as a dick move by most.
VladimirHerzog wrote: i just don't believe the playerbase in the states is that toxic, for sure there are people that don't play in stores as much that you can reach in local facebook groups or something.
Showing up to my store with high powered list outside of an actual tournament would be seen as a dick move by most.
You'd be surprised. I've gotten kicked out of garagehammer FB groups for daring to ask people if they'd consider playing less competitively.
Tiberias wrote: Every time something is too strong people immediately scream that this current thing is the most broken thing the game has ever seen ever....I guess it's a natural reaction, but demonstrably false.
I'm an active custodes player however and I say point nerfs are in order. Trajann is way too cheap and the bikes and salvo launchers need to go up a bit as well. Id also give wardens and terminators a slight bump in points. One thing I'm against is touching the strats too much, a very big portion of custodes survivability is now tied to the stratagems and touching them too much can exponentially hurt the faction. I'm not saying don't do anything with them, but gw needs to be careful.
I'd rather see light touches as well. Personally I think the approach GW took with DE was the correct approach even if it didn't solve the problem immediately as the issue can be complex as I'll try and illustrate below.
My particular thrust here is to get GW to communicate with us and make sure they're addressing things in a timely manner and not to specify specific changes or to enforce the will of the communities ideas of balance.
The thing with Trajann is he seems to come with Master and Champion traits considering the others don't really do much for him except maybe Peerless. Master means you're picking up 5 CP regen easily plus 1 for Trajann himself and then 5 per round putting them at 23CP.
This exacerbates the cost of strats. This trait doesn't need to be tied to Trajann either so bumping his points doesn't necessarily clear us from the problem and I don't see GW changing the trait. If Trajann got forced out people would pick up the trait and a dreadnought and dish out rr1s to wound that way.
Custodes have a 1CP interrupt when on an objective ( which will be most of the time ). Clearly it should be 1CP, because otherwise why would it exist, but with such a large pool of CP and superb melee it's just a straight auto use every time it can be. So in this position changing the CP doesn't make sense.
No, DE were not the correct approach. They should absolutely not have been allowed to run roughshod over the competitive meta for 9? months only to now be crowded out not because they got brought in line but because there is even more ridiculous gak out there.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there Over here trying to ask people to not bring competitive lists is seen as insulting by a great many players in the pool and generates a lot of anger and drama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What? Thousand sons are good now. I don't get why you think they suck.
I haven't actively played since 7th ed shortly after their book came out and they were face dropped unless you were running Magnus and Mortarion (lol...) combo. I have no idea if they suck today. I was told they still suck if you're running a rubric themed Thousand Sons (the reason why most people would choose that legion I'd think).
If rubrics are suddenly able to show up to open game day and not get destroyed by the tournament hotness then awesome. I was under the assumption that is definitely not the case.
And if it is the case then cool. My point stands that if you can't play a faction you enjoy without it being a horrible negative experience getting trounced by busted and OP deck building elements, its not a good game and needs revisited (often over the past many years the answer is simply "just dont play bad factions then and make sure you do your research and play one of the optimal lists".
They are dreadfully MEH. The suffer from having a really crappy roster of units to take, because their only 2 gimmick units are dreadfully horrible in the game right now for the point cost.
All is dust might as well be dust, because the rule hardly ever comes into effect, or is useful since everything has multi AP multi Damage.
Magnus is hot garbage, because lving on T7 with a 4++ is like hiding behind a wet paper bag.
The lack of power diversity also greatly hurts them due to the fact that everything is more or less another way to do d3 mortal wounds.
There are a lot of things they could do, that would greatly help them be a lot more viable.
-Add in Sehkmet terminator elite choice (I know they are SOT but specifically a body guard uint) that magnus can utilize similar to death shrouds
-Give more heavy support options Lib dread for example
-Intorduce a silver tower heavy support or LOW unit
-provide more witchfire like power that multiple units can take
-possibly allow Tsons to case the same powers multiple times no stacking them
-allow them to properly ally with daemons of tzeentzch such as pink horrors as troops, screamers, flamers, but with conditions like you need more tsons units then tzeentzch units
Not saying all these need to be done but something along these lines.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
I can write an entire book on the last 20 years of me running public narrative campaigns for stores... from being screamed at, having our facebook group hacked, to a guy wanting to fight me in the parking lot because we were using warhammer world scenarios that weren't tournament-standard.
Find it hard to believe all you want but the cooperative experience you are pushing would be great but is just simply not the environment in a lot of regions over here.
Ordana wrote: No, DE were not the correct approach. They should absolutely not have been allowed to run roughshod over the competitive meta for 9? months only to now be crowded out not because they got brought in line but because there is even more ridiculous gak out there.
I agree with you, the DE "balance" is a case study in bad decisions by GW. When you only touch the points so infrequently as they do in their current model, they need to be heavier handed. Release date for the DE codex was March 2021 so it is 11 months of them being too good.
Even now they are still too good for Space Marines and Death Guard, and maybe too good for a few of the other 9th edition codexes. This is the flaw with the power creep ladder model GW are using, DE will have been knocked down by Tau and Custodes in win rate, but that doesn't mean they have been fixed into the other codexes, it just means everyone has gone down at least two rungs on the ladder.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
I can write an entire book on the last 20 years of me running public narrative campaigns for stores... from being screamed at, having our facebook group hacked, to a guy wanting to fight me in the parking lot because we were using warhammer world scenarios that weren't tournament-standard.
Find it hard to believe all you want but the cooperative experience you are pushing would be great but is just simply not the environment in a lot of regions over here.
Genuinely sorry to hear that, sounds awful honestly. Gotta open your own store with blackjack and hookers and better player culture
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
I can write an entire book on the last 20 years of me running public narrative campaigns for stores... from being screamed at, having our facebook group hacked, to a guy wanting to fight me in the parking lot because we were using warhammer world scenarios that weren't tournament-standard.
Find it hard to believe all you want but the cooperative experience you are pushing would be great but is just simply not the environment in a lot of regions over here.
Genuinely sorry to hear that, sounds awful honestly. Gotta open your own store with blackjack and hookers and better player culture
Its legitimately unfortunate, but 40k in USA for the most part is generally fething horribly competitive and rough.
You either come ready to swing, or get hit.
Genuinely sorry to hear that, sounds awful honestly. Gotta open your own store with blackjack and hookers and better player culture
I can't argue with that you are absolutely 100% right on that one!
Since moving the region I am in now (the southwest) is still pretty competitive but a lot of the players are a bit more chill.
I've come in contact with a couple of guys that enjoy the more european approach of make sure the guy across from you is also having fun so we may as a small collective try for a club like that. Can't say for sure it will involve 40k but finding like minded people is a good part of the puzzle.
Ordana wrote: No, DE were not the correct approach. They should absolutely not have been allowed to run roughshod over the competitive meta for 9? months only to now be crowded out not because they got brought in line but because there is even more ridiculous gak out there.
There's a lot more than changed than just a couple new books, you know. I'm not positive they were crowded out solely by getting beat down.
This is the WR of DE from 1/1 to 2/10 compared to that of 2/11 through now. This shows that even IG are performing at 50% against DE who are supposed to be too good to be casually beaten.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
It's just an overly aggressively competitive mindset that goes with Keeping up with the Jones'.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
It's just an overly aggressively competitive mindset that goes with Keeping up with the Jones'.
I hate it as an American.
Worst part of it is trying to wean people off of it and get them to look at the game in a less competitive light. I mean we have people locally we feel the need to cheese Crusade just because they need to win harder, not because it tells a good or interesting story.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
It's just an overly aggressively competitive mindset that goes with Keeping up with the Jones'.
I hate it as an American.
Worst part of it is trying to wean people off of it and get them to look at the game in a less competitive light. I mean we have people locally we feel the need to cheese Crusade just because they need to win harder, not because it tells a good or interesting story.
Scuse me but that needs some explaining, like , you literally are forced to name squads, advance them like in an RPG, how can one miss that the story is the focal point and not the winning?
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
It's just an overly aggressively competitive mindset that goes with Keeping up with the Jones'.
I hate it as an American.
Worst part of it is trying to wean people off of it and get them to look at the game in a less competitive light. I mean we have people locally we feel the need to cheese Crusade just because they need to win harder, not because it tells a good or interesting story.
Scuse me but that needs some explaining, like , you literally are forced to name squads, advance them like in an RPG, how can one miss that the story is the focal point and not the winning?
I wish I could explain it myself but basically they went for the strongest options and combinations. One player even defended his choices with the excuse that "it doesn't say that I can't."
Sim-Life wrote:
Okay so you nerf Custodes and they're no longer busted. Then the Tyranids book comes out and THEY'RE busted. So they get nerfed. Then the Guard codex comes out and THAT is busted. And round and round it goes forever and ever until the players get sick of it, leave and then GW goes "11th Ed is the MOST PLAYTESTED EDITION EVER FOR REAL THIS TIME (buy these 2 €59 books and subscribe to the monthly payment app and thess bi-annual rules updates and 4 supplements to find out how!" and everyone comes running back and the cycle starts over again.
Daedalus's letter would probably be better if it included a withdrawal of financial support, rather than just asking politely. Money is the only thing GW cares about after all.
Not everyone though comes back though. GW games are still so ubiquitous and visible that they're still where a lot wargamers start though, so the games still grow.
As long as the games grow GW's current buisness practices are viable.
Canadian 5th wrote:I have a decent chunk of DA models that I could repair and paint, but I just can't imagine myself ever coming back to 40k at this stage. I came back to these forums around 8th after playing a few casual games with the new system. I followed the change to 9th and the tournament scene, but I just can't see how this game as it stands is enjoyable.
It feels like it's time to sell the models as a lot and jump ship to Battletech.
Good for you.
Do note that One Page Rules has rules that you can use 40k models for though.
For Sci-Fi games also check out Stargrave Infinity and Deadzone
ClockworkZion wrote:I do love how the thread started as raising constructive feedback to GW in regards to people's concerns about game balance only for it to devolve into doompilling 40k, selling stuff off to play Battletech and immediately saying that GW will only do this stuff again.
Is this stuff bad? Yes. But god the game has been so much worse in the past and this is nothing like invisible unkillable deathstars from 7th or equally nonsense things we saw in the past.
Disillusionment makes salt. We used to think about constructive feedback (not that GW used to listen), we hoped that the next FAQ/codex/edition would fix things and we heard the reasons that 40k was a mess "right now". GW "get their act together".
Every FAQ/codex/edition disappointed though.
GW had opportunities to fix things, but didn't.
Eventually it becomes clear that the fix isn't coming. GW never had any intention to balance their games.
GW does have their act together, they know what they're doing; but their priority is their shareholders, not the community.
tauist wrote: I'm telling you, "Nerfing your army on purpose" is a thing. Try it, you might like it
Another thread poster, sadly I cannot recall who but a real hero imho, suggested that list matching is a skill. The idea here was that one says ok, I know that you have this limited collection or that you want to use X and Y, so I will use Z and S because the matchup should begin and interesting… instead of saying ok, how can I out game the game and meta my list to crush that other dudes stuff flat in two turns.
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
It's just an overly aggressively competitive mindset that goes with Keeping up with the Jones'.
I hate it as an American.
I left the US for a lot of reasons, that was one of them.
What I have found in Europe is a different weird for me pride in normalcy.
More polite tho, and can actually have a different opinion and trade reasons and not end up hating each other in a fight.
One thing in common tho is endemic corruption, tho in Europe it is more covert.
I never really play outside of my direct friend group, so I can't really comment on how they play, but my local game store seems really friendly. I've heard them playing Kill Team and they do the occasional 500 point 40k "tournament" there. There's one guy that plays Infinity, and was excited that me and my friend learned it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I play in Florida, so all our crazy people are probably not playing 40k, so that might help.
heh I played in Tampa a few years ago... they were as friendly as any place and that was good, but they for sure had a hard cluster of super competitive types that made it clear if you were using houserules or non traditional formats that you weren't playing real 40k.
The AOS group there was also pretty hard line when it came to the games played in public being very meta.
Again, in my experience Euro/UK players are just as toxic about competition, it's just considered uncivil to bring it up or call someone out for cheating.
Daed.
On DE winrates, do you have any evidence thats due to "top players" (somehow calculated) moving on to other factions? With a probable swing in the win percentage as a result?
I thought it was a suspect argument in 8th but I think the evidence is more compelling now. How you'd weight that is hard to say.
Ordana wrote: No, DE were not the correct approach. They should absolutely not have been allowed to run roughshod over the competitive meta for 9? months only to now be crowded out not because they got brought in line but because there is even more ridiculous gak out there.
There's a lot more than changed than just a couple new books, you know. I'm not positive they were crowded out solely by getting beat down.
This is the WR of DE from 1/1 to 2/10 compared to that of 2/11 through now. This shows that even IG are performing at 50% against DE who are supposed to be too good to be casually beaten.
are you trying to imply matchup percentages from a 7 game sample size?
Really?
The facts are simple, nothing has changed about DE since the balance dataslate in November. Drukhari has since been pushed off their repeated podium spots somewhat by the new Crushing Swarm list and now Custodes and Tau.
They have not been 'fixed'. Just surpassed by newer more broken armies.
Just my thoughts. I do hope you take the time to consider this as I've had lots of fun, but I fear that could be placed in jeopardy with the loss of confidence in the releases.
Sincerely,
A concerned decades long customer
So with the quoted texted in mind you are basically say that the 9th ed 40k is well for the lack of a better term F'ed up, at lest the Custodes and T'au are more broken then a gravel pit?
Hecaton wrote: Again, in my experience Euro/UK players are just as toxic about competition, it's just considered uncivil to bring it up or call someone out for cheating.
I think the difference is that Europa generally has a pretty healthy mix of narrative, casual and competitive players. Of course some clubs and areas skew one way or another, but generally if I want to swing one way or another that evening I'm not going to have too much trouble finding a group/game - even if I have to attend a different venue that's a little further out.
By contrast, the US seems to be almost exclusively dominated by the assumption you'll be playing competitively. Even if you're not attending tournaments and casually playing among friends, you're still putting your best netlist/skewlist forward with whatever the winning combination is that season and toeing the GW party line because that's what The Season is. Obviously I'm generalising a great deal here, but rule of thumb seems to be that competitive-minded play is 'the norm' in the US whilst in Europe/UK you're more likely to find somebody in another camp.
I have noticed the UK competitive scene becoming much more prominent though, which is often pushed by a local 'personality' who's got a Youtube following he wants to make a living off.
Ordana wrote: No, DE were not the correct approach. They should absolutely not have been allowed to run roughshod over the competitive meta for 9? months only to now be crowded out not because they got brought in line but because there is even more ridiculous gak out there.
There's a lot more than changed than just a couple new books, you know. I'm not positive they were crowded out solely by getting beat down.
This is the WR of DE from 1/1 to 2/10 compared to that of 2/11 through now. This shows that even IG are performing at 50% against DE who are supposed to be too good to be casually beaten.
are you trying to imply matchup percentages from a 7 game sample size?
Really?
The facts are simple, nothing has changed about DE since the balance dataslate in November. Drukhari has since been pushed off their repeated podium spots somewhat by the new Crushing Swarm list and now Custodes and Tau.
They have not been 'fixed'. Just surpassed by newer more broken armies.
Yes, it's a small sample size, but the large majority of armies improved against DE and many had quite a few games.
Here's another data point to consider. DE averaged 71.5 points from 1/1 to 2/10. From 2/11 forward they average 68.1 points without Tau and Custodes in the mix. With Tau and Custodes it is 66.6.
Hecaton wrote: Again, in my experience Euro/UK players are just as toxic about competition, it's just considered uncivil to bring it up or call someone out for cheating.
I think the difference is that Europa generally has a pretty healthy mix of narrative, casual and competitive players. Of course some clubs and areas skew one way or another, but generally if I want to swing one way or another that evening I'm not going to have too much trouble finding a group/game - even if I have to attend a different venue that's a little further out.
By contrast, the US seems to be almost exclusively dominated by the assumption you'll be playing competitively. Even if you're not attending tournaments and casually playing among friends, you're still putting your best netlist/skewlist forward with whatever the winning combination is that season and toeing the GW party line because that's what The Season is. Obviously I'm generalising a great deal here, but rule of thumb seems to be that competitive-minded play is 'the norm' in the US whilst in Europe/UK you're more likely to find somebody in another camp.
I have noticed the UK competitive scene becoming much more prominent though, which is often pushed by a local 'personality' who's got a Youtube following he wants to make a living off.
There's multiple Crusade leagues going on in the mid-sized city I live in right now in the US, based around different shops. There's also about 1 good tournament a month. So it seems to be split about 50/50, with some overlap.
The main thing is that US players are less likely to use "just play narrative" as an excuse for poor rules writing (though it does happen).
Hecaton wrote: Again, in my experience Euro/UK players are just as toxic about competition, it's just considered uncivil to bring it up or call someone out for cheating.
I think the difference is that Europa generally has a pretty healthy mix of narrative, casual and competitive players. Of course some clubs and areas skew one way or another, but generally if I want to swing one way or another that evening I'm not going to have too much trouble finding a group/game - even if I have to attend a different venue that's a little further out.
By contrast, the US seems to be almost exclusively dominated by the assumption you'll be playing competitively. Even if you're not attending tournaments and casually playing among friends, you're still putting your best netlist/skewlist forward with whatever the winning combination is that season and toeing the GW party line because that's what The Season is. Obviously I'm generalising a great deal here, but rule of thumb seems to be that competitive-minded play is 'the norm' in the US whilst in Europe/UK you're more likely to find somebody in another camp.
I have noticed the UK competitive scene becoming much more prominent though, which is often pushed by a local 'personality' who's got a Youtube following he wants to make a living off.
There's multiple Crusade leagues going on in the mid-sized city I live in right now in the US, based around different shops. There's also about 1 good tournament a month. So it seems to be split about 50/50, with some overlap.
The main thing is that US players are less likely to use "just play narrative" as an excuse for poor rules writing (though it does happen).
I wouldn't argue that "just play narrative" is an excuse but rather a different approach where you take the game as a sandbox and tweak it as you see fit to create interesting stories. It's more free to make changes when things don't work.
Less tweaking is necessary though if the rules aren't crap though.
Sure it's fun to do lopsided games where you run 2000 points of Marines vs 3000 points of Tyranids. Wouldn't it be better though if that weren't equal footing to begin with though because GW overtuned one army and the other one sucked?
Daedalus81 wrote: This is the WR of DE from 1/1 to 2/10 compared to that of 2/11 through now. This shows that even IG are performing at 50% against DE who are supposed to be too good to be casually beaten.
Data quality question again, Daed - how're the IG managing a 50% win rate... from an odd number of games?
Or you know, talk to people and maybe work something out like your gaming partner not bringing the most competitive list or using 100p less than you. I'm not saying things are all fine and dandy, but selling off an army you like to play the new hotness is never the answer...never has been.
This doesn't work with many stores in the US. I note that most people that say to do this are from Europe. Vastly different pool of player personalities over there
Well fair enough, but I find it hard to believe that people playing this game in the US are somehow generally more unreasonable and not willing to make the gaming experience fun for both parties.
I can write an entire book on the last 20 years of me running public narrative campaigns for stores... from being screamed at, having our facebook group hacked, to a guy wanting to fight me in the parking lot because we were using warhammer world scenarios that weren't tournament-standard.
Find it hard to believe all you want but the cooperative experience you are pushing would be great but is just simply not the environment in a lot of regions over here.
Genuinely sorry to hear that, sounds awful honestly. Gotta open your own store with blackjack and hookers and better player culture
Its legitimately unfortunate, but 40k in USA for the most part is generally fething horribly competitive and rough.
You either come ready to swing, or get hit.
Which is funny in a game that's 100% impossible to play competively. Can't play competively non-competive game.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is the WR of DE from 1/1 to 2/10 compared to that of 2/11 through now. This shows that even IG are performing at 50% against DE who are supposed to be too good to be casually beaten.
Data quality question again, Daed - how're the IG managing a 50% win rate... from an odd number of games?
Tourney play dominates in the local London club. The ruleset is so complicated (not complex) that the tourney streamlining is handy and the 40k players might attend 2-3 tournies a year. So they want to practice for them as they will only get to play once a fortnight on average.
It's easier to nerf OP armies than buff UP armies because tournament players will gravitate towards the OP factions and OP units within those OP factions. Whether a unit is the worst unit in the game or just a slightly underwhelming unit is next to impossible to tell from tournament data. The only reason to release something UP instead of OP is because the changes are more well-received, you'd have to be a real git to disapprove of pts reductions to an underperforming faction, but if you've just gone out and gotten 18 Battybuggies then it really sucks when GW nerfs them even if you know that they deserve it and some people will tell themselves that the unit they just maxed out isn't OP.
Sim-Life wrote: Nah, balance for 40k has never been better. Have you tried playing with more terrain? You're probably not using enough terrain.
You might be playing with too much terrain, you need to follow GW's exact tournament terrain specifications with only two different setups using the exact same 10 pieces of terrain every game or the game balance goes belly up /sarcasm.
Dysartes wrote: Data quality question again, Daed - how're the IG managing a 50% win rate... from an odd number of games?
Ties -- BCP stores a win as 2, draw as 1, and loss as 0. So the calculation becomes the sum of all "points" divided by 2 then divided by games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kargan3033 wrote: So with the quoted texted in mind you are basically say that the 9th ed 40k is well for the lack of a better term F'ed up, at lest the Custodes and T'au are more broken then a gravel pit?
I wouldn't state it like that, no, but I recognize the problem and how it can affect people negatively.
Getting a book exactly right....is likely insanely difficult. I don't want the pendulum to swing the other way and books come out anemic. It's just that books that go too far in the OP direction are worse for the community and the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: But seriously, the Eldar book'll be out in a fortnight and it'll shake things up again. I don't think it's worth worrying about.
Aenar wrote: The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time
As I've explained in other threads in the past - yes playtesting is done ahead of the release schedule, everything is "balanced' around a gamestate that doesn't exist yet. This is by necessity - they have multiple codexes in development at any given time, due to lead times with publications, etc. a codex is finalized several months before its released, during which time balance changes in the live meta are often implemented which can cause the power level of a finalized but unpublished codex to vary from its balanced state.
Obviously this approach causes all sorts of problems in terms of the impact new releases have on the live meta, as the counter to a book perceived as OP today might not drop for another 6-9 months, during which time you have to make changes to balance the live meta or the game will suffer without them, but the tradeoff is that the balance of those forthcoming books will also suffer as a result of the changes you make to the live meta which can't be captured in playtesting before the book is finalized. In essence, by "patching" the live meta in response to immediate balance concerns, you end up releasing forthcoming books into a context that they were never playtested in as those patches are often not captured in the "test environment" in the near term due to the publication schedule, as a result this effects the balance of not only what has already been released but also everything that has yet to be released as well. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in general, the trend of live balancing is to reduce power, which only serves to make newer releases appear more powerful by comparison and exacerbates "codex creep", which itself is the result of the release schedule being too lengthy and drawn out.
Early books always end up underpowered because they are playtested against the meta of the previous edition of the game, the power ramps up over time because playtesting builds upon itself over the course of each edition and is heavily skewed towards collecting data on the next few unreleased books/factions simultaneously rather than taking a "slow and steady" approach of palytesting only against other books in the live environment. Codex Creep also results from the rapid-fire nature of the edition cycle, at this point in an edition lifecycle they will have started writing and playtesting with early drafts of the next edition of the rules in mind in an effort to try to future-proof the books somewhat, which comes with its own problems.
Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.
Aenar wrote: The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time
As I've explained in other threads in the past - yes playtesting is done ahead of the release schedule, everything is "balanced' around a gamestate that doesn't exist yet. This is by necessity - they have multiple codexes in development at any given time, due to lead times with publications, etc. a codex is finalized several months before its released, during which time balance changes in the live meta are often implemented which can cause the power level of a finalized but unpublished codex to vary from its balanced state.
Obviously this approach causes all sorts of problems in terms of the impact new releases have on the live meta, as the counter to a book perceived as OP today might not drop for another 6-9 months, during which time you have to make changes to balance the live meta or the game will suffer without them, but the tradeoff is that the balance of those forthcoming books will also suffer as a result of the changes you make to the live meta which can't be captured in playtesting before the book is finalized. In essence, by "patching" the live meta in response to immediate balance concerns, you end up releasing forthcoming books into a context that they were never playtested in as those patches are often not captured in the "test environment" in the near term due to the publication schedule, as a result this effects the balance of not only what has already been released but also everything that has yet to be released as well. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in general, the trend of live balancing is to reduce power, which only serves to make newer releases appear more powerful by comparison and exacerbates "codex creep", which itself is the result of the release schedule being too lengthy and drawn out.
Early books always end up underpowered because they are playtested against the meta of the previous edition of the game, the power ramps up over time because playtesting builds upon itself over the course of each edition and is heavily skewed towards collecting data on the next few unreleased books/factions simultaneously rather than taking a "slow and steady" approach of palytesting only against other books in the live environment. Codex Creep also results from the rapid-fire nature of the edition cycle, at this point in an edition lifecycle they will have started writing and playtesting with early drafts of the next edition of the rules in mind in an effort to try to future-proof the books somewhat, which comes with its own problems.
Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.
That was a great read. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
chaos0xomega wrote: Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.
I think this is true to a degree. Seemingly unusual results from a tournament can sometimes be explained by a very atypical composition of factions. So for example at the time of Marine Dominance, Marines were making up about 30-35% of most tournament lists. But there were some where this approached 50% - and others where it was as low as 20%.
The problem I think though is that we very rarely see a meta in 40k of X keeps Y in check which keeps Z in check so everyone can sort of rub along together.
You tend to have a faction which at least soft counters just about everything (seemingly like Custodes today). And you then have a faction (more like Tau) which has perhaps some "weaker" matchups - but these are still at worst 55/45 toss ups, while you retain crushing dominance versus the rest of the field. Then you have your midtable gatekeepers. And then at the other end you have factions which are just in trouble.
And that's sort of the concern. Its hard to see why say Death Guard win percentage would go up if CWE come out and dumpster everyone. Mainly because it feels like if CWE can cope with Custodes, they really should be able to cope with DG (and in turn, if CWE can't cope with Custodes, they aren't going to be winning many tournaments).
AOS was playtested in the early days horribly. I know other games I am a playtester on are also not tested great.
Hell in Conquest we had guys playtesting WITH THEIR WIVES and saying "yeah its fine everythings fine".
You need even numbers, standard style lists of varying degree, and repetitive games to start to see the patterns.
What we see in most any playtest group are some people playing some games and then a rainbow of opinions come out, often contradictory, where one faction has had like 60% of the entire playtest pool dedicated to it and the others a fraction of that.
And then we get the final product which is... what we have today.
fun fact, GSc list is faulty, nick bought a singular democharge, which is not an option for his hybrids, therefor, he actually played with 2005 pts,
Its shocking how you can even make that mistake when buying 1 demo for 5 isn't an option. This isn't 8th with points per weapon in a big list and the need to cross reference what each unit/model has. Its right there under Acolyte Hybrids.
fun fact, GSc list is faulty, nick bought a singular democharge, which is not an option for his hybrids, therefor, he actually played with 2005 pts,
Oh the humanity, oh the Horror!
They should be drawn & quartered and their head impaled upon a pike @ Warhammer World.
Scuse me, but A as ordana stated, its doubly stated. B It stands out within the context of the codex , very much so. C. The list is just faulty in a way that it has nock on effects,fwiw it leads to f.e flame pistols squad not being a reliable marker for crossfire, which considering crossfire is quite a big deal can cut down firepower from neophytes not unsiginificantly or for the ridgerunners.
And no, all in all its just 5 pts and an honest mistake most likely but still in the way this list is built it has reprecussions. And no i don't want him quartered for it but it IS a fault that will have had impact due to the way the GSC dex is designed.
vict0988 wrote: You might be playing with too much terrain, you need to follow GW's exact tournament terrain specifications with only two different setups using the exact same 10 pieces of terrain every game or the game balance goes belly up /sarcasm.
To pick up on that despite you being sarcastic - I've actually found those set-ups a good starting point for fun games. Take some terrain that very roughly fits those 10 pieces and set up the table by eye-balling distances. You then make some room for larger models to move and add some "scatter terrain" like containers, barricades and craters. Once you're done, you end up with a decent looking table that allows you to both hide your stuff and still take shots at units not in hiding.
And then you get smacked off that table by an army that ignores almost all terrain rules
Aenar wrote: The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time
As I've explained in other threads in the past - yes playtesting is done ahead of the release schedule, everything is "balanced' around a gamestate that doesn't exist yet. This is by necessity - they have multiple codexes in development at any given time, due to lead times with publications, etc. a codex is finalized several months before its released, during which time balance changes in the live meta are often implemented which can cause the power level of a finalized but unpublished codex to vary from its balanced state.
Obviously this approach causes all sorts of problems in terms of the impact new releases have on the live meta, as the counter to a book perceived as OP today might not drop for another 6-9 months, during which time you have to make changes to balance the live meta or the game will suffer without them, but the tradeoff is that the balance of those forthcoming books will also suffer as a result of the changes you make to the live meta which can't be captured in playtesting before the book is finalized. In essence, by "patching" the live meta in response to immediate balance concerns, you end up releasing forthcoming books into a context that they were never playtested in as those patches are often not captured in the "test environment" in the near term due to the publication schedule, as a result this effects the balance of not only what has already been released but also everything that has yet to be released as well. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in general, the trend of live balancing is to reduce power, which only serves to make newer releases appear more powerful by comparison and exacerbates "codex creep", which itself is the result of the release schedule being too lengthy and drawn out.
Early books always end up underpowered because they are playtested against the meta of the previous edition of the game, the power ramps up over time because playtesting builds upon itself over the course of each edition and is heavily skewed towards collecting data on the next few unreleased books/factions simultaneously rather than taking a "slow and steady" approach of palytesting only against other books in the live environment. Codex Creep also results from the rapid-fire nature of the edition cycle, at this point in an edition lifecycle they will have started writing and playtesting with early drafts of the next edition of the rules in mind in an effort to try to future-proof the books somewhat, which comes with its own problems.
Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.
This is fundamentally backwards. The meta is a response to the codexes and codex creep, not the other way around. If multiple codexes were being developed at the same time, then they would all come out at about the same power level. Instead, each and every codex that has come out in 9th is a power-step above the previous codex. This implies that each codex is only playtested against the prior codex, not every codex since Marines, definitely not against the baseline Marine codex, and built specifically to best the prior codex. Case in point: Girlyman vs. Trajann. Just about the same capability, one is HALF the cost of the other. No semi-competent playtester would let that through.
There is minor evidence to the contrary, for example looking at Space Wolf Hounds of Morkai's potential use against Thousands Sons and Grey Knights. But that evidence is quickly shot down because the HoM can't even perform their function against any psyker, not just TS & GKs. And this scant evidence is overwhelmed by the unit-over-unit, army-over-army, codex-over-codex, month-after-month, year-over-year codex power level increased.
The final nail in that coffin is that all the latest codexes have answers to codex creep by having counters to prior codexes, while none of the prior codexes have answers to the latest codexes. How many codexes before Tau/Custodes have mainline units that shoot indirectly (a direct response to terrain increases), and/or ignore invulnerables (a response to the proliferferation of INV saves from AP proliferation) AND mainline units that move-shoot-move, a direct response to terrain and units ignoring INV saves?
brainpsyk wrote: This is fundamentally backwards. The meta is a response to the codexes and codex creep, not the other way around. If multiple codexes were being developed at the same time, then they would all come out at about the same power level. Instead, each and every codex that has come out in 9th is a power-step above the previous codex. This implies that each codex is only playtested against the prior codex, not every codex since Marines, definitely not against the baseline Marine codex, and built specifically to best the prior codex. Case in point: Girlyman vs. Trajann. Just about the same capability, one is HALF the cost of the other. No semi-competent playtester would let that through.
Drukhari were out in March. That puts Tau and Custodes testing against that army as a highly likely. Playtesters testing against the strongest army is valid, but causes a disconnect if GW isn't telling them that DE shouldn't be that powerful.
That Bobby exists probably doesn't even register to most play testers. He doesn't register to me at all unless I see him played. It's quite difficult to make sure you test everything against everything.
The final nail in that coffin is that all the latest codexes have answers to codex creep by having counters to prior codexes, while none of the prior codexes have answers to the latest codexes. How many codexes before Tau/Custodes have mainline units that shoot indirectly (a direct response to terrain increases), and/or ignore invulnerables (a response to the proliferferation of INV saves from AP proliferation) AND mainline units that move-shoot-move, a direct response to terrain and units ignoring INV saves?
Ingoring invulnerable saves is in Necrons, CSM, and Thousand Sons.
Move-shoot-move was a thing Eldar and Tau did in editions prior - they're just bringing it back.
In 8th edition IG mortars and TFCs were used so often it was sickening and it had nothing to do with AP or invulnerable saves.
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.
brainpsyk wrote: It's quite difficult to make sure you test everything against everything.
GW is a multi-million dollar international company (with record profits the last few years) with revenue in the hundreds of millions. One article in 2021 even states they are operating at 43% profit margin.
They could actually hire 40 people to play games every day, 40 hours a week for minimum wage, to record data and not even spend $1mil doing so. Probably less depending on which country they do this in. If they wanted to be cheap they could do more people as part-time with no benefits.
It's not difficult...they just don't want to. And from a business standpoint; it's working for them just fine 'as is'.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.
That, wasn't my point, at all. My point is that gw shouldn't need playtestors to tell them that a lot of the stuff in the new codexes aren't balanced against their counterparts in older codexes and vice-versa. You shouldn't need playtesting to tell you that a unit with similar stats + abilities, or in some cases better stats and abilities, shouldn't be cheaper than a similar unit in an older codex. It should be common sense.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.
That, wasn't my point, at all. My point is that gw shouldn't need playtestors to tell them that a lot of the stuff in the new codexes aren't balanced against their counterparts in older codexes and vice-versa. You shouldn't need playtesting to tell you that a unit with similar stats + abilities, or in some cases better stats and abilities, shouldn't be cheaper than a similar unit in an older codex. It should be common sense.
Assuming, of course, that their goal is to balance new Codexes against older Codexes, and not just to generate hype for new releases in order to sell minis at the expense of any gameplay considerations.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.
That, wasn't my point, at all. My point is that gw shouldn't need playtestors to tell them that a lot of the stuff in the new codexes aren't balanced against their counterparts in older codexes and vice-versa. You shouldn't need playtesting to tell you that a unit with similar stats + abilities, or in some cases better stats and abilities, shouldn't be cheaper than a similar unit in an older codex. It should be common sense.
GW is a multi-million dollar international company (with record profits the last few years) with revenue in the hundreds of millions. One article in 2021 even states they are operating at 43% profit margin.
They could actually hire 40 people to play games every day, 40 hours a week for minimum wage, to record data and not even spend $1mil doing so. Probably less depending on which country they do this in. If they wanted to be cheap they could do more people as part-time with no benefits.
It's not difficult...they just don't want to. And from a business standpoint; it's working for them just fine 'as is'.
Managers ( that's a lot of people ), payroll taxes, office space, data collection, analysis, etc. I don't think our hobby game balance is worth exploiting part time workers with no holiday or sick pay, either.
It isn't like you put 40 slobs in a room and magic happens. And no bean counter is going to sign off on that, because GW will sell models just because they look cool.
Drukhari were out in March. That puts Tau and Custodes testing against that army as a highly likely. Playtesters testing against the strongest army is valid, but causes a disconnect if GW isn't telling them that DE shouldn't be that powerful.
That Bobby exists probably doesn't even register to most play testers. He doesn't register to me at all unless I see him played. It's quite difficult to make sure you test everything against everything.
He absolutely should. If GW is only playtesting against specific weaker units, then codexes should come out weaker, not stronger. But new codexes are coming out stronger against latest meta armies with ridiculous win rates.
If DE were out in March, then DE should have been playtested against Marines, DG, TS, GSC, Custodes and Tau. You only need 9 data points to make a decision, and 9 games of DE vs. Marines, or 9 games vs DG would have told GW DE is too strong. 9 games of Custodes vs Marines would have told GW that Custodes are too strong, etc. Instead, GW buffed DE and buffed Custodes right before release, implying they weren't beating other codexes by a large enough margin.
Ingoring invulnerable saves is in Necrons, CSM, and Thousand Sons.
Move-shoot-move was a thing Eldar and Tau did in editions prior - they're just bringing it back.
In 8th edition IG mortars and TFCs were used so often it was sickening and it had nothing to do with AP or invulnerable saves.
Yep, kinda like how the latest codexes are sickening against older 9th edition codexes...
It's so bad, even the a Poly Sci stats class will give you enough data to show how bad it is (~100 point of models, no buffs/strats/doctrines/etc, best shooting weapon profile):
Those aren't even the best units in those codexes, and those numbers get far far worse when you start to include melee stats, strats, doctrines, etc. So any claim of 'balance' or 'playtesting' at this point is 99% pure, unadulterated bunk.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.
You might have a point with the Monolith's ability to deep strike and teleport troops, but it's superior BS and whopping TWO extra wounds fall flat compared to the Stormsurge's superior firepower and 4++. And it still doesn't help the similarly priced, but not similarly statted, Naughts. And definitely not the far less durable, lower firepower, and more expensive Cerberus. And that's just comparisons to the Stormsurge. Explain the price difference between the Wraithknight and similar units like Baneblades etc. It isn't "fuzzy" and you know it. They're throwing these new codexes out with no regard for the older codexes.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.
You might have a point with the Monolith's ability to deep strike and teleport troops, but it's superior BS and whopping TWO extra wounds fall flat compared to the Stormsurge's superior firepower and 4++. And it still doesn't help the similarly priced, but not similarly statted, Naughts. And definitely not the far less durable, lower firepower, and more expensive Cerberus. And that's just comparisons to the Stormsurge. Explain the price difference between the Wraithknight and similar units like Baneblades etc. It isn't "fuzzy" and you know it. They're throwing these new codexes out with no regard for the older codexes.
Baneblades suffer the ills of old edition.
The 'Nauts suffer from the flexibility of teleport, 3D6 charge, rerollable charges, and flat 6 damage that can hit on 2s.
And, of course, GW seems to way over value transport capacity.
I couldn't tell you why 330 for the SS was considered appropriate, but it also probably isn't far off. SS up by 40 and Nauts down by 40 probably wouldn't break the game. And give the god damn velocity and multi-tracker a points cost for christs sake. There's no way it should be free regardless of model.
Obviously something IS broken with the process, but it's more at a scale that goes beyond individual units and points.
It's so bad, even the a Poly Sci stats class will give you enough data to show how bad it is (~100 point of models, no buffs/strats/doctrines/etc, best shooting weapon profile):
Those aren't even the best units in those codexes, and those numbers get far far worse when you start to include melee stats, strats, doctrines, etc. So any claim of 'balance' or 'playtesting' at this point is 99% pure, unadulterated bunk.
This is the kind of analysis that's terrible for balancing, because it completely ignores the defensive profile, melee, ranges, and more.
You opted to consider the pulse blaster, which is typically a 14" gun and compared it to a 30" marine rifle and it seems you went with the 8" profile. Could they get there with a devilfish? Absolutely, but that's an additional cost and consideration as well as a model that pops for D6 mortals.
The perceptions of the placement of marines in tournaments can be more to do with who is playing them than what their rules contain. Certain marine pilots do quite well and while they certainly need a boost the gap isn't so massive as to require massive changes.
brainpsyk wrote: The final nail in that coffin is that all the latest codexes have answers to codex creep by having counters to prior codexes, while none of the prior codexes have answers to the latest codexes. How many codexes before Tau/Custodes have mainline units that shoot indirectly (a direct response to terrain increases), and/or ignore invulnerables (a response to the proliferferation of INV saves from AP proliferation) AND mainline units that move-shoot-move, a direct response to terrain and units ignoring INV saves?
Simple answer: None.
This really. Its perhaps inevitable that "later" codexes get new things. But from 8th and now into 9th its clear they are written with the meta in mind.
And this inevitably creates a sort of obsolescence. That can perhaps be fixed by just giving older codexes 10% more points due to reductions every year - but its not great.
GW should have in mind that "buffing close combat character with these stats" is worth about X. +/- 10% given the vagaries of faction rules is fine. But when you are out by maybe 50% its not. Its just clear evidence you have no idea what you are doing.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.
Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.
You might have a point with the Monolith's ability to deep strike and teleport troops, but it's superior BS and whopping TWO extra wounds fall flat compared to the Stormsurge's superior firepower and 4++. And it still doesn't help the similarly priced, but not similarly statted, Naughts. And definitely not the far less durable, lower firepower, and more expensive Cerberus. And that's just comparisons to the Stormsurge. Explain the price difference between the Wraithknight and similar units like Baneblades etc. It isn't "fuzzy" and you know it. They're throwing these new codexes out with no regard for the older codexes.
Baneblades suffer the ills of old edition.
The 'Nauts suffer from the flexibility of teleport, 3D6 charge, rerollable charges, and flat 6 damage that can hit on 2s.
And, of course, GW seems to way over value transport capacity.
I couldn't tell you why 330 for the SS was considered appropriate, but it also probably isn't far off. SS up by 40 and Nauts down by 40 probably wouldn't break the game. And give the god damn velocity and multi-tracker a points cost for christs sake. There's no way it should be free regardless of model.
Obviously something IS broken with the process, but it's more at a scale that goes beyond individual units and points.
Just because something is "old edition", doesn't mean it can't be fairly priced compared to "new edition" things. If gw expects people to play 9th with 8th edition codexes, then they need to put in the effort needed to keep those 8th edition codexes relevant until the 9th edition replacement is available. That's just basic customer service.
And the individual unit points are a symptom of the bigger problem with the process. They aren't keeping the whole game balanced. Just playing whack-a-mole with overly powerful tournament builds isn't fixing the problem.
Dysartes wrote: Data quality question again, Daed - how're the IG managing a 50% win rate... from an odd number of games?
Ties -- BCP stores a win as 2, draw as 1, and loss as 0. So the calculation becomes the sum of all "points" divided by 2 then divided by games.
So none of those figures are actual win percentages, then? Good to know.
Would be better with three COUNTIF() (or possibly COUNTIFS()) functions for each, so you know how many games end with a W/D/L result, then report those percentages.
Not that I'd expect all that many draws in the data, unless TOs are letting people get away with ID as a result again...
Why do so many, here, on other forums, message boards, and at game shops around the world continue to hold onto some kind of "hope" that GW will change its ways and some day give a damn about the rules and balance of 40K when so many are willing to hand them money, hand over fist, for the current mess of bloated and unbalanced rules GW continues to churn out? We are talking about rulebooks so full of issues that errata/faq updates for each book are automatically assumed and expected soon after release, some updates even require you to pay more money (ex. chapter approved/points updates), and a lot of these books you paid for are invalidated just months after release.
Many of you helped GW reach record profits in recent years by supporting this crap with your money, and yet you post so much on boards like this about how unbalanced the codexes are, how bloated the rules are, and "if only" GW would fix "this" or "that." In my opinion, if you paid money for these books knowing well what the state of the game is, then you have no right to complain; you are another enabler of GW's shoddy rules writing and antiquated rules distribution system (are we no longer living in a "digital age?").
Newsflash: As long as so many continue to give more and more money to GW for this crap, GW does not care one bit what you think. They will continue to take your money while giving you gak rules in return because so many of you have signaled you will lap it up and keep on asking for more.
This is the kind of analysis that's terrible for balancing, because it completely ignores the defensive profile, melee, ranges, and more.
You opted to consider the pulse blaster, which is typically a 14" gun and compared it to a 30" marine rifle and it seems you went with the 8" profile. Could they get there with a devilfish? Absolutely, but that's an additional cost and consideration as well as a model that pops for D6 mortals.
The perceptions of the placement of marines in tournaments can be more to do with who is playing them than what their rules contain. Certain marine pilots do quite well and while they certainly need a boost the gap isn't so massive as to require massive changes.
That would be true if there were serious advantages in the marine's shooting, which there is not. The Galvanic rifles perform at that level out to 30", meaning their profile is even better at longer ranges.
The melee of the marines is not 3x that of the Rangers or the Tau, so that point is moot as well.
As for the transport: Red Herring and hand waving, not going there.
Absolutely, who is playing marines makes a difference. Those are probably well experienced players playing a known faction with tons of hours behind their lists. Then Custodes come in at LVO with little playtesting of a brand new codex and stomp all over them with ridiculous output and durability. The advantage there should have been with the marines, but codex creep made it 90% about the codex and not the players experience.
Why do so many, here, on other forums, message boards, and at game shops around the world continue to hold onto some kind of "hope" that GW will change its ways and some day give a damn about the rules and balance of 40K when so many are willing to hand them money, hand over fist, for the current mess of bloated and unbalanced rules GW continues to churn out? We are talking about rulebooks so full of issues that errata/faq updates for each book are automatically assumed and expected soon after release, some updates even require you to pay more money (ex. chapter approved/points updates), and a lot of these books you paid for are invalidated just months after release.
I don't anymore. I will buy the rulebooks, but all my models are used off of Ebay. I'm even looking at picking up a 4K resin printer ($450ish) and 3D printing an entire Tau army.
If the GW App was of a quality where I didn't need the rulebooks & Codexes, I wouldn't even buy those (which is probably why the GW app is lacking...).
Gadzilla666 wrote: Just because something is "old edition", doesn't mean it can't be fairly priced compared to "new edition" things. If gw expects people to play 9th with 8th edition codexes, then they need to put in the effort needed to keep those 8th edition codexes relevant until the 9th edition replacement is available. That's just basic customer service.
And the individual unit points are a symptom of the bigger problem with the process. They aren't keeping the whole game balanced. Just playing whack-a-mole with overly powerful tournament builds isn't fixing the problem.
I mean they could lower the price of Baneblades to like...250 or something, but then what happens to LRBTs as they automatically get crowded out? How many people here would call it a sales ploy? How many people would buy them and then get upset to find their points get jacked up later?
Or on the reverse side - do you price the new superheavies high enough to make Baneblades comparatively worthwhile, which makes those units bad compared to the rest of the codex?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Just because something is "old edition", doesn't mean it can't be fairly priced compared to "new edition" things. If gw expects people to play 9th with 8th edition codexes, then they need to put in the effort needed to keep those 8th edition codexes relevant until the 9th edition replacement is available. That's just basic customer service.
And the individual unit points are a symptom of the bigger problem with the process. They aren't keeping the whole game balanced. Just playing whack-a-mole with overly powerful tournament builds isn't fixing the problem.
I mean they could lower the price of Baneblades to like...250 or something, but then what happens to LRBTs as they automatically get crowded out? How many people here would call it a sales ploy? How many people would buy them and then get upset to find their points get jacked up later?
Or on the reverse side - do you price the new superheavies high enough to make Baneblades comparatively worthwhile, which makes those units bad compared to the rest of the codex?
That's.....pretty hyperbolic, Daed. Which isn't like you. You could definitely lower the price of Baneblades without getting them down to 250 PPM. And you could definitely give the newer LoWs a points bump that doesn't make them overpriced for their stats. At minimum, I'd say a 4 sponson Baneblade should at least be cheaper (not more expensive, which it currently is) than a Fellblade or Astraeus. And no, that doesn't mean increasing the prices for Fellblades and Astraeus, it means cutting the price for the Baneblade.
But, again, we're arguing individual unit points, which doesn't address the basic problem: gw aren't balancing the game as a whole. That's why we see these weirdly out of sync prices. They need to look at as much of the game as possible (obviously it would be hard to address everything), and not just what's currently overperforming in the tournament scene. And it needs to be the current game, not the one that existed 8 months ago. Which means getting away from the current method of balancing the game with printed products. Which I think was one of the points you were making?
That would be true if there were serious advantages in the marine's shooting, which there is not. The Galvanic rifles perform at that level out to 30", meaning their profile is even better at longer ranges.
The melee of the marines is not 3x that of the Rangers or the Tau, so that point is moot as well.
As for the transport: Red Herring and hand waving, not going there.
Absolutely, who is playing marines makes a difference. Those are probably well experienced players playing a known faction with tons of hours behind their lists. Then Custodes come in at LVO with little playtesting of a brand new codex and stomp all over them with ridiculous output and durability. The advantage there should have been with the marines, but codex creep made it 90% about the codex and not the players experience.
It isn't a red herring. Saying Breachers will win when across the table from Intercessors ignores so much it's just absolutely unrepresentative of the games mechanics.
9 Ranger Vets do 3 wounds to Intercessors - reducing them by 20%
5 Marines do 3 wounds to Rangers - reducing them by 33%
There's a pretty big gap there. The picture is totally different if they both shoot something T3, because the weight of numbers will take over. If it wasn't for the durability buffs for Skitarii you wouldn't see them taken in large blobs. Skitarii blobs are the perfect thing to take Tau down, but there hasn't been a single game recorded for that matchup since Tau's book.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Just because something is "old edition", doesn't mean it can't be fairly priced compared to "new edition" things. If gw expects people to play 9th with 8th edition codexes, then they need to put in the effort needed to keep those 8th edition codexes relevant until the 9th edition replacement is available. That's just basic customer service.
And the individual unit points are a symptom of the bigger problem with the process. They aren't keeping the whole game balanced. Just playing whack-a-mole with overly powerful tournament builds isn't fixing the problem.
I mean they could lower the price of Baneblades to like...250 or something, but then what happens to LRBTs as they automatically get crowded out? How many people here would call it a sales ploy? How many people would buy them and then get upset to find their points get jacked up later?
Or on the reverse side - do you price the new superheavies high enough to make Baneblades comparatively worthwhile, which makes those units bad compared to the rest of the codex?
That's.....pretty hyperbolic, Daed. Which isn't like you. You could definitely lower the price of Baneblades without getting them down to 250 PPM. And you could definitely give the newer LoWs a points bump that doesn't make them overpriced for their stats. At minimum, I'd say a 4 sponson Baneblade should at least be cheaper (not more expensive, which it currently is) than a Fellblade or Astraeus. And no, that doesn't mean increasing the prices for Fellblades and Astraeus, it means cutting the price for the Baneblade.
But, again, we're arguing individual unit points, which doesn't address the basic problem: gw aren't balancing the game as a whole. That's why we see these weirdly out of sync prices. They need to look at as much of the game as possible (obviously it would be hard to address everything), and not just what's currently overperforming in the tournament scene. And it needs to be the current game, not the one that existed 8 months ago. Which means getting away from the current method of balancing the game with printed products. Which I think was one of the points you were making?
Well I was just tossing a number out there that would make sense against the SS at 330 -- with no sponsons. The Baneblade would have to be pretty cheap. Even if we didn't compare to SS ( it needs a nerf of a sort ) you'd still be placing them BBs in the 300 range, which is dicey, because T8 W26 stuff en masse can get brutal.
And it still paints you into a corner for when the buffs eventually come.
It isn't ideal. I'm sure there's something they could do. I don't think there's an easy solution, but, yes -- if they took a little more care things might seem a little less stark in contrast.
The idea that GW actually playtests their game is laughable at best. I can point to you the entire last decade where the Stompa was Garbage tier. Christ, they reduced its price by 200pts this edition and its still a pile of crap. Not to mention their "Play testers" saying it would be broken with how good it was. The fact is that GW doesn't playtest, they rely on a few players to provide insight into game balance and that is about it. Sadly, unless you play one of those "play testers" favorite armies, you aren't likely to get good/balanced rules. As Jidmah said more than once, and which I totally agree, Orkz were "good" for a bit, more by accident than anything else. The fact that after numerous points adjustments for their codex and chances to fix issues they still haven't made a host of units playable/good, is more proof that they don't know what they are doing. Or do you think a Big Mek with a SAG is really worth 110pts or that Beastboss on Squigosaur is BETTER than Trajann Valoris? ATM A Beastboss on Squigosaur is 175pts, Trajann is 160pts. Let that sink in and get back to me.
Next Daed, you are incorrect in the extreme, DE is not the best way to adjust points costs. DE and AD Mech have been running away with the tournament scene for almost a year solid. Your "analysis" that they finally dropped a bit in the last week is wonderful, except we have proof that some of the top players in the world who were bringing those lists have moved on to GSC, Tau and Custards.
Mani Cheema, Brought Drukhari as recently as LVO, last 2 GT's hes played in? Custards and Nidz, he didn't play custards last year.
Malik Amin Rubio, brought Cult Mechanicus almost exclusively in 9th so far. Last GT? GSC Nick Nanavati, last year played mostly Drukhari, this year his only GT was GSC.
And again, we are in February, as the months go by and more GTs are played I'll bet you more of those top players are migrating to the OP factions. So its less that Drukhari went down because of the nerfs and more that the top players moved over to other factions.
It isn't a red herring. Saying Breachers will win when across the table from Intercessors ignores so much it's just absolutely unrepresentative of the games mechanics.
9 Ranger Vets do 3 wounds to Intercessors - reducing them by 20%
5 Marines do 3 wounds to Rangers - reducing them by 33%
There's a pretty big gap there. The picture is totally different if they both shoot something T3, because the weight of numbers will take over. If it wasn't for the durability buffs for Skitarii you wouldn't see them taken in large blobs. Skitarii blobs are the perfect thing to take Tau down, but there hasn't been a single game recorded for that matchup since Tau's book.
Distance isn't a problem in 9th, except maybe for the player going first, but even then shooting doesn't matter because player 1 is just throwing a cheap unit onto a mid-field objective to die. Having the lethality at longer range means that player can keep expensive units back while throwing cheap units onto points, while the marines have to throw expensive units onto points that just get picked up.
You're conveniently ignoring the real math. 100 points is 5 marines or 11 rangers. Those 5 marines do 3W to rangers, a 27% reduction in the Ranger's capabilities. Those 11 rangers do 4W to marines, a 40% reduction to marines capabilities, at longer range (15" for RF vs. straight 30"), with better strats and doctrinas. And that's against AdMech, which have been surpassed by Nids, Tau and Custodes.
I think you unintentionally contradicted your own point. There probably hasn't been a matchup of AdMech vs. Tau because those AdMech players have switched to better factions (Bugs, Tau and Custodes)
SemperMortis wrote: Next Daed, you are incorrect in the extreme, DE is not the best way to adjust points costs. DE and AD Mech have been running away with the tournament scene for almost a year solid. Your "analysis" that they finally dropped a bit in the last week is wonderful, except we have proof that some of the top players in the world who were bringing those lists have moved on to GSC, Tau and Custards.
Good point.
Here's what I get when I look at only DE players who stuck with the army. The weighted average is -4.14 points.
Check the last guy who played more games this period and did way worse. Did they all catch bad matchups? That player went to Beachead and Kirtonian Carnage XIV. He won all three at KCXIV.
This DE went 2-1 vs Tau so they seem to be a competent player. I'll agree its still small data, but it still trends down.
It isn't a red herring. Saying Breachers will win when across the table from Intercessors ignores so much it's just absolutely unrepresentative of the games mechanics.
9 Ranger Vets do 3 wounds to Intercessors - reducing them by 20%
5 Marines do 3 wounds to Rangers - reducing them by 33%
There's a pretty big gap there. The picture is totally different if they both shoot something T3, because the weight of numbers will take over. If it wasn't for the durability buffs for Skitarii you wouldn't see them taken in large blobs. Skitarii blobs are the perfect thing to take Tau down, but there hasn't been a single game recorded for that matchup since Tau's book.
Distance isn't a problem in 9th, except maybe for the player going first, but even then shooting doesn't matter because player 1 is just throwing a cheap unit onto a mid-field objective to die. Having the lethality at longer range means that player can keep expensive units back while throwing cheap units onto points, while the marines have to throw expensive units onto points that just get picked up.
You're conveniently ignoring the real math. 100 points is 5 marines or 11 rangers. Those 5 marines do 3W to rangers, a 27% reduction in the Ranger's capabilities. Those 11 rangers do 4W to marines, a 40% reduction to marines capabilities, at longer range (15" for RF vs. straight 30"), with better strats and doctrinas. And that's against AdMech, which have been surpassed by Nids, Tau and Custodes.
I think you unintentionally contradicted your own point. There probably hasn't been a matchup of AdMech vs. Tau because those AdMech players have switched to better factions (Bugs, Tau and Custodes)
You rounded up from 3.6 on that marine to kill an extra model. You also said range didn't matter, but highlighted range on the two units? You also decided to not use vets, which absolutely carry a distinct disadvantage over their counterparts so you'd actually have 9.
I've done enough of these games on this forum, so that's where I'm going to end my paticipation this part of the conversation.
You rounded up from 3.6 on that marine to kill an extra model. You also said range didn't matter, but highlighted range on the two units? You also decided to not use vets, which absolutely carry a distinct disadvantage over their counterparts so you'd actually have 9.
I've done enough of these games on this forum, so that's where I'm going to end my paticipation this part of the conversation.
You really just can't do math can you, and you're balking at your own argument.
11xSkitarii Ranger w/GalvanicRifle vs. intercessor No Mods mean: 3.7 MEDIAN=4.0 σ=1.8
5xIntercessor Bolt Rifle vs. Skitarii Ranger No Mods mean: 3.0 MEDIAN=3.0 σ=1.5
You know a median right? The value in the middle, not usually subject to outliers like the mean. FYI - It's usually better to look at the median value and Standard Deviation rather than the mean. It's fine to use the mean when it's really close to the median. For example, a weapon that does 5000 mortal wounds but has a 1-in-1000 chance of going off has a mean of 5MW, but a median of zero. Not a good weapon. Most people on the forums use an approximation of the mean, which is fine for napkin math, but not as an authority.
You're the one who brought up range as if it makes a huge difference. And, like I stated, for the most part range doesn't matter as it it's easy to get into range in 9th (I rapid fire my lasguns all the time... to no effect). However, in the few times there when it does matter, then the galvanic rifle has a much better profile, totally negating your own "but... but... range" argument.
To be fair, now Codex Glass D-Cannon is fully revealed, I'm left a bit non-plussed.
I feel Eldar will destroy certain casual games. But not sure its the same competitive raw power level as Tau, because everything is fairly expensive. Aspect Warriors for instance can have their 5++ - but they are going to die if looked at funny, and its a lot of points. With a lot of LOS ignoring shooting, if these guys are on the table, they are dead. Wave Sepents and Falcons are a chunk of points.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yep and the most common discrete result is still one marine.
What you're trying to show is the lean towards results 4+:
In other news Cherokee top 8 has just one non-Tau and non-Custodes player -- a Crusher Stampede.
Well done :-) (Seriously, )
Now, please run the same simulation for 12 Tau Breacher fire warrriors with pulse blasters (102 points), and 5 Intercessors with Bolt Rifles (100 points) and post those results as well.
Tyel wrote: To be fair, now Codex Glass D-Cannon is fully revealed, I'm left a bit non-plussed.
I feel Eldar will destroy certain casual games. But not sure its the same competitive raw power level as Tau, because everything is fairly expensive. Aspect Warriors for instance can have their 5++ - but they are going to die if looked at funny, and its a lot of points. With a lot of LOS ignoring shooting, if these guys are on the table, they are dead. Wave Sepents and Falcons are a chunk of points.
To be fair, I’m actually not entirely sure that the craftworld section of the codex is that scary. You’re right that everything is expensive, and it seems many things got Toned down with restrictions (lose -3 inches on battlefocus into cover, dire avengers as elites).
However, Harlequins look absurd. Light in particular gives me custodes vibes with their needing 4+ to be hit at over 12 inches away (which can be 6 inches and allow no re-rolls with certain buffs). All their units also got cheaper and better as well. And the only real nerfs they got where losing charges after double move power and only 2 fusion pistols per squad. I bet they compete better than craftworlds with custodes and Tau. Additionally, I also think they make drukhari viable again due being a “free” add.
Tyel wrote: To be fair, now Codex Glass D-Cannon is fully revealed, I'm left a bit non-plussed.
I feel Eldar will destroy certain casual games. But not sure its the same competitive raw power level as Tau, because everything is fairly expensive. Aspect Warriors for instance can have their 5++ - but they are going to die if looked at funny, and its a lot of points. With a lot of LOS ignoring shooting, if these guys are on the table, they are dead. Wave Sepents and Falcons are a chunk of points.
To be fair, I’m actually not entirely sure that the craftworld section of the codex is that scary. You’re right that everything is expensive, and it seems many things got Toned down with restrictions (lose -3 inches on battlefocus into cover, dire avengers as elites).
However, Harlequins look absurd. Light in particular gives me custodes vibes with their needing 4+ to be hit at over 12 inches away (which can be 6 inches and allow no re-rolls with certain buffs). All their units also got cheaper and better as well. And the only real nerfs they got where losing charges after double move power and only 2 fusion pistols per squad. I bet they compete better than craftworlds with custodes and Tau. Additionally, I also think they make drukhari viable again due being a “free” add.
This of course to determent of every other army.
I agree that I think Harlequins will do better than craftworlds, but they're still not up to custodes level of absurd. Being T3 alone is enough to significantly weaken them, despite having the same 4++ that custards get.
A combination of harlequins and craftworlds may well be the way to go. But anyone complaining about Eldar right now are delusional.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yep and the most common discrete result is still one marine.
What you're trying to show is the lean towards results 4+:
In other news Cherokee top 8 has just one non-Tau and non-Custodes player -- a Crusher Stampede.
Well done :-) (Seriously, )
Now, please run the same simulation for 12 Tau Breacher fire warrriors with pulse blasters (102 points), and 5 Intercessors with Bolt Rifles (100 points) and post those results as well.
Then I'd also have to do Ranger Vets and then a durability test considering they're way more durable than regular vets. Especially against something like AFPs, which have blast and avenues for more AP. We should also finally factor in that Galvanic Rifles are heavy and come with a move penalty...
And I'd still have to pretend to ignore ranges, which seems fairly obtuse considering how short ranges Breachers can be.
There's so much more to balance than just X shoots Y on planet bowling ball.
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
Btw, Did you hear that orkz won a single GT where they tabled their opponent turn 2? His opponent admitted later he had no chance at all because he only had like 3 weapons which could actually hurt ork vehicles thanks to ramshackle. Better nerf the entire F*cking faction!
I think Tau are only in it because they are one of the few armies that can possible shoot and kill enough custodes on turn 1 to turn it into a good game. There are probably quite few other factions out there that can win against Tau because they can be super aggressive and do turn 1 charges. They get in turn 1, tag as much of the Tau army they can, and its an uphill climb for Tau from that point. But those types of armies would get creamed by all huge number of Custodes armies in the field right now.
Tau isn't a direct counter to Custodes, but they at least have a chance. Most other armies just fold against Custodes. Hence why you are seeing the top 8 dominated by Tau and Custodes.
The key question now is... if you want to counter Custodes, what army would you bring? They have literally zero weaknesses really. Whereas if its just Tau, Tau can be countered. You can tailor build lists against Tau. Because we know they are weak to melee and being touched in melee.
SemperMortis wrote: Btw, Did you hear that orkz won a single GT where they tabled their opponent turn 2? His opponent admitted later he had no chance at all because he only had like 3 weapons which could actually hurt ork vehicles thanks to ramshackle. Better nerf the entire F*cking faction!
Yup, the two-facedness when dealing with different factions is very noticeable.
Ohh noes... an army I don't play is stupidly undercosted and overpowered.
Ohh noes X2 - a few new somethings have come out and a different army I dont play is now over powered and undercosted.
Holy Hell when will it stop, my army book is 3 years old and has been shelved, just because it cant compete anymore with the units I like to take.
Damnnn yeah.... did you see my new book? Bow down to your plastic army men overlords and weep . My army is going to obliterate all opposition. Muhahahahahahaha....
3 months later.... well darn it, not the best on the board anymore.
Its the same cycle for over 20 years... Nothing to see here, nothing to be done about it. This is 40K, unless someone else buys out GW with a completely different mindset that says rules over euros, it will never change. Just enjoy the ride of being top dog when its your turn, it will be fleeting.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think Tau are only in it because they are one of the few armies that can possible shoot and kill enough custodes on turn 1 to turn it into a good game.
Ok, what are the Tau bring to accomplish this trick?
What makes you think that many other forces can't do the same?
Eldenfirefly wrote: The key question now is... if you want to counter Custodes, what army would you bring? They have literally zero weaknesses really.
Custodes have a weakness. It's the same weakness Deathwing forces had in previous editions - low model count.
In answer to your question? I'll bring my Necrons. As is I've got (and bring) the firepower. But if I KNOW I'm facing Custodes I can further tweak my list.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think Tau are only in it because they are one of the few armies that can possible shoot and kill enough custodes on turn 1 to turn it into a good game.
Ok, what are the Tau bring to accomplish this trick?
What makes you think that many other forces can't do the same?
Probably just a question of being pts-efficient enough, I don't know enough about Tau or Custodes to say whether that is actually the case.
Necron anti-horde is kind of weak this edition (because of the tesla MWBD nerf), so a lot of Necron lists pack a tonne of anti-MEQ which means Necrons are theoretically in a relatively good position to deal with Custodes. If you look at old tournament stats Necrons were doing okay into Custodes, I think part of that is also that Custodes do not have a tonne of MW effects which is a Necron weakness.
So one of the biggist complaints i hear about custodes is their strats are too cheap, when they are actually appropriately costed compared to other codex's.
We pay 1 CP for the 2 defensive strats on minimum sized units (which is literally what every other codex pays) and 2CP for a larger squad.
In 8th we had to pay 2cp all the time and ran out of CP in turn 3 (back when we had 3++ saves).
Now that we lost the 3++ I dont see how its unfair that the strats got a bit cheaper?
Trajann realistically gives 4 CP over the course of a game (1 for being warlord and regenning 3). This is pretty par for the course for a 9th codex and actually much weaker than the tau (they get a CP back on a 2+ every turn).
Points-wise trajann is undercosted for sure, but raising his points by 20 wont really fix the issue as you raise another issue (that he can be chosen as a TTL target in alot of lists at 180).
Bikes themselves are fine, but salvo's need to go up in points cost.
Dreads are scary, but tau are making them obsolete so you wont see them spammed as much.
Aquilon terminators are actually OVERCOSTED currently and need some help (which is why you never see them).
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
There definately will be a big change in the win rates once people get used to them and if you play against people that dont roll above average you will find that custodes fold pretty quick to alot of armies.
I've currently never beat a Tau army with my custodes, and still frequently loose to orks (Speed waaaaagh army of renown is almost tau) and nids.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.
I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.
And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".
ClockworkZion wrote: I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.
I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.
And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".
I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.
I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.
And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".
I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.
Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.
I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.
And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".
I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.
Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
D2 is horrible into -1 damage which is not uncommon. The trick to winning tournaments is not to be able to beat Marines. If you can beat the top armies you can beat Marines.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.
I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.
And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".
I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.
Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
D2 is horrible into -1 damage which is not uncommon. The trick to winning tournaments is not to be able to beat Marines. If you can beat the top armies you can beat Marines.
Not familiar with the new custodes overly, but with how their damage has shifted to mostly D2 and their saves marginally lowered, is it possible that in playtesting dreamland the concept was that they'd be blunted by ramshackle ork lists and death guard in that case? DG in particular (pre nerf) feel like they should be the obvious foil, dropping custodes toughness in close range and shrugging off the d2.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
There definately will be a big change in the win rates once people get used to them and if you play against people that dont roll above average you will find that custodes fold pretty quick to alot of armies.
This is a very, very, and I do mean very, humorous take.
We've had over a month for people to "get used to them" and if weighted dice was the decisive factor then what faction you play wouldn't matter because of "weighted dice". Unless, of course, the book is just way stronger than everything else. The tourney circuit moves at a great speed and if Custodes were easily countered then that would have happened already(and somewhat have with Tau as they are a strong book as well).
The only thing that has challenged them is Tau and who knows, maybe Aeldari will take the top spot next week, but to imply that the Golden Boys are somehow secretly balanced is a very bad take. A humorous take, but a bad take.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
It feels like GW is trying to create a meta where going all in on one weapon type is never the correct answer, but that said when every army doesn't have access to every kind of weapon profile it doesn't work as effectively in practice.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
It feels like GW is trying to create a meta where going all in on one weapon type is never the correct answer, but that said when every army doesn't have access to every kind of weapon profile it doesn't work as effectively in practice.
There was a quote and explanation I think earlier in this thread where they explained an aim to playtest in an environment where you could face any book with even representation, so some factions are intended to be better or worse against some others to round the process out.
In a world where you weren't expecting to have to play off against mostly tau/custodes in the top slots and instead you were forced to round robin every codex, lists and the win rates might be different.
you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Marines of basically any type have little chance to beat custodes.
Necrons are actually good into custodes.
Tau are good into custodes because for some reason even when you cut off rerolls and transhuman they still table you by turn 3.
Crusher swarm still trades favorably into custodes, it just cant play the nachmund missions well.
Aeldari of all types are fixing to get their 9th codex so no point mentioning them.
Chaos used to have the advantage into custodes but lost alot of that when the 9th book dropped.
Knights used to be a build based match (infantry spam custodes lost into them, dreadnoughts won), but now custodes beat them pretty easily.
GSC arent hot into custodes, but they are a strong book into alot of other armies.
SoB got nerfed too hard and so loose most of the time.
Admech isnt good into custodes now that they cant auto-delete with mortals.
Ork is bad with the exception of their Army of Renown (which is basically the same as tau but with less ignore LOS shooting).
Custodes have alot of counterplay. More importantly they actually let you play instead of just removing your whole army from the table in 2 turns. If people are winning with custodes its because their opponents are making mistakes (either overcommiting and making a bad trade or undercommitting and doing nothing).
Custodes have alot of counterplay. More importantly they actually let you play instead of just removing your whole army from the table in 2 turns. If people are winning with custodes its because their opponents are making mistakes (either overcommiting and making a bad trade or undercommitting and doing nothing).
Custodes are undercosted by about 10%-15%. This is objectively true.
Also (and you didn't mention it in this comment, but you did in your previous, and I cba to quote it), you say that your CP costs are the same as other armies. I haven't gone through every codex, but the armies I play have to pay 2CP or 3CP for several of their strongest game-winning strats. Custodes pay 1CP most of the time. Is this due to unit sizes? Maybe, but then due to the nature of custodes, this still means they get a significantly bigger force multiplier for that 1CP than other armies do.
I've seen custodes games where they're spamming command rerolls and their strats each turn, and barely manage to use up their CP over the whole game. While other armies are out of CP by turn 3, and are still losing by a landslide.
HOWEVER - Even though I personally think custodes points and strats are undercosted, I wouldn't necessarily advocate for changing both of them at the same time. TToo many variables. I would (in a perfect world) change EITHER the points, or the strats, and then see how things balance out.
Unfortunately in this world we live in, it takes GW 6-12 months to make any actual updates, so that's not really an option unless we want to risk custodes stomping the meta for the next year. (Which is probably what will happen anyway, cos... GW.)
I'm not sure you can push a 65% win rate (rising to 70% if you take out Tau) on "opponents are making mistakes".
The whole "Custodes are a club in a meta full of seals" was meant to be a parody.
The problem as I see it is that rather like Harlequins in early 9th - the meta can't easily evolve. I think I read that Custodes were 12% of the playerbase in last weekend's recorded tournaments. Tau were 9%. This is a fair chunk - but not that much.
It may be possible to build an "anti-Custodes" army with all factions (not convinced tbh, but go with it) - but if that means you get destroyed in the first few rounds against everyone else, its not going to help very much. Which is sort of the pros and cons of balancing around a tournament scene.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
I genuinely can't tell if this is a parody post or if you're on some next-level delusion gak.
Our army is overpowered, and if you regularly lose to weaker armies you have a good match-up with it's because they are better players than you or you're building weaker Custodes armies. This cope gak is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Your low skill garagehammer games aren't evidence buddy.
Eihnlazer wrote: you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Marines of basically any type have little chance to beat custodes.
Necrons are actually good into custodes.
Tau are good into custodes because for some reason even when you cut off rerolls and transhuman they still table you by turn 3.
Crusher swarm still trades favorably into custodes, it just cant play the nachmund missions well.
Aeldari of all types are fixing to get their 9th codex so no point mentioning them.
Chaos used to have the advantage into custodes but lost alot of that when the 9th book dropped.
Knights used to be a build based match (infantry spam custodes lost into them, dreadnoughts won), but now custodes beat them pretty easily.
GSC arent hot into custodes, but they are a strong book into alot of other armies.
SoB got nerfed too hard and so loose most of the time.
Admech isnt good into custodes now that they cant auto-delete with mortals.
Ork is bad with the exception of their Army of Renown (which is basically the same as tau but with less ignore LOS shooting).
You do realize that you are listing quite a lot of armies and claiming they have a hard time with Custodes? I even highlighted where you are actually supporting the fact that Custodes is an overtuned book. You can't claim that Custodes are balanced and then state that more than half of the factions in the entire game have a hard time dealing with Custodes.
I am actually of the opinion that Custodes are OP right now, but mostly because of two very bad reasons:
1. The actual skill levels of competitive players is low currently. And the best players are picking Custodes.
2. Custodes were designed to be the best at not dying, more than any faction in the game. Right now the general mission set appears to be a mix of "kill characters" and get to the center of the map and hold it at all costs/king of the hill. Custodes can do this better than anyone.
Distant 3rd. Bikes are stupidly priced, as is Trajann.
ClockworkZion wrote: Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.
Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.
Tau suits create incentive for D2 if you're an army without easy access to D3+3. Then stuff like the Wraithlord disincentivize it. Overall it becomes a balancing act in a list to not hamstring yourself.
Custodes can trade out for more attacks if they need to and basically always hit and almost always wound. Throw on the salvos for their D3+3 and they have the range of targets covered pretty well.
It feels like GW is trying to create a meta where going all in on one weapon type is never the correct answer, but that said when every army doesn't have access to every kind of weapon profile it doesn't work as effectively in practice.
There was a quote and explanation I think earlier in this thread where they explained an aim to playtest in an environment where you could face any book with even representation, so some factions are intended to be better or worse against some others to round the process out.
In a world where you weren't expecting to have to play off against mostly tau/custodes in the top slots and instead you were forced to round robin every codex, lists and the win rates might be different.
Necrons just picked up a tournament win this past weekend as well as some other good sets of wins in other tournaments. Necrons are perhaps tougher for Custodes, because they do approach the point where it becomes really difficult to get through all the obsec.
This guy beat Custodes twice, Tau, Goffs, and Sisters.
Now MAYBE if more of these kinds of armies showed up to Cherokee we would see Taustodes with a lower win rate. It doesn't fix the issue, but it does perhaps demonstrate the self selecting nature of the data as top player jump around.
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
It was 175 40k players. 88 tables. So 88 undefeated players after round 1, 44 after round 2, 22 after round 3, which ended the first day.
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
EightFoldPath wrote: Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
Or it's someone who knows that Cherokee NC is effectively in the middle of bloody nowhere and that it isn't going to be indicative of anything except the super-hardcores who would show up.
This isn't like the LVO or Adepticon or GenCon, where there's a lot of things going on for you to make a week of it or whatever and they're in a place with easy accessibility via airport and hotels.
EightFoldPath wrote: Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
Or it's someone who knows that Cherokee is the middle of bloody nowhere and that it isn't going to be indicative of anything except the super-hardcores who would show up.
So you literally don't think that a tournament in Cherokee is valid data? Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith.
Your claim would be good for why a seemingly balanced field doesn't actually represent the true brokenness of the meta; a broken meta in Cherokee just means it's *really* broken.
EightFoldPath wrote: Just another one of those posts where you realise you could be talking to someone who has never played a game of 40k (or in this case never played in a tournment) but if they are willing to post more than you their voice carries more weight.
Or it's someone who knows that Cherokee is the middle of bloody nowhere and that it isn't going to be indicative of anything except the super-hardcores who would show up.
So you literally don't think that a tournament in Cherokee is valid data? Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith.
Don't tell me you're surprised by that.
It's a simple formula:
Does this data/fact support the narrative I'm trying to spin?
If Yes? Huzzah! See, I'm right!
If No? Either freely ignore it or claim it means something else & still claim to be correct.
Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.
I genuinely can't tell if this is a parody post or if you're on some next-level delusion gak.
Our army is overpowered, and if you regularly lose to weaker armies you have a good match-up with it's because they are better players than you or you're building weaker Custodes armies. This cope gak is lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: you can call my take humorous, but since i've actually played alot of games with newstodes and havent only blown a few armies out of the water with them I know what im talking about.
Your low skill garagehammer games aren't evidence buddy.
What a bad faith statement. I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
Fact of the matter is unlike other armies we did not get sweeping datasheet changes. All custodes got was the same free Detachment rules every other army has and reposted stratagems.
That's it.
Look at the book and tell me I'm wrong.
The only thing that went down in points was trajann, terminators, and wardens. Termies were overcosted so now they are ok.
Eihnlazer wrote: What a bad faith statement. I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
Fact of the matter is unlike other armies we did not get sweeping datasheet changes. All custodes got was the same free Detachment rules every other army has and reposted stratagems.
That's it.
Look at the book and tell me I'm wrong.
The only thing that went down in points was trajann, terminators, and wardens. Termies were overcosted so now they are ok.
Bikes went to W5 and Salvos went to D3+3. W5 is a significant breakpoint for the game especially with a 4++/6+++ for no change in cost.
Trajann picked up a W and an A, went from 3++ to 4++/5+++ ( slight sidegrade/downgrade ), flat 3 damage up from D3, and he went from one crappy WLT to two -- one of which fuels strats and allows you to adjust the Katah.
Shield Hosts put up two traits instead of just being a WLT, Relic, and Strat. And then you add the Ka'tah.
Transhuman went from 2 CP for any to 1/2. Same with +1 to wound. When you look at most lists very few bring units above 3.
You also effectively doubled in unit size when controlling objectives.
Emperor's Chosen suffocates any army the needs mortal wounds to get through armor on models that have 0+/1+. It also gives a wound reroll to salvos. Popping into the traits of a different host when the opportunity is high doesn't hurt either.
There's quite a bit that changed, really...all for pretty much the same cost or less and Custodes were pretty competitive before DE got in the way. Leadership was occasionally a thorn, but no longer, really.
And there's just no possible way THAT many Custodes players are throwing weighted dice.
What a bad faith statement. I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
Fact of the matter is unlike other armies we did not get sweeping datasheet changes. All custodes got was the same free Detachment rules every other army has and reposted stratagems.
That's it.
Look at the book and tell me I'm wrong.
The only thing that went down in points was trajann, terminators, and wardens. Termies were overcosted so now they are ok.
You can't say "bad faith" if you're seriously pushing the idea that Custodes players are using weighted dice en masse. It's insulting and disrespectful to expect us to take that seriously; it's an idiotic idea.
I never said all custodes players were using weighted dice, nor did i name any players.
I implied that tournament players could be using weighted dice (4+ is all you need and its fairly easy to do) and that would HEAVILY affect win-rates.
Custodes are a 50/50 army. They were before and still are now. The difference now is that we arent JUST a 50/50 army, we now have ways to score points and play the mission, and ways to actually do damage.
The old codex was weak and relied ENTIRELY on not dying through strats and 3++. It was a one dimensional and boring game in alot of matchups.
Now that custodes actually have things they can do, CP we can spend, and can actually do damage we are OP?
Im not even trying to deny the win rates are high. Im saying do an actual comparison on datasheets with custodes models to other factions and tell me we are undercosted.
Custodes are over overpointed if you just look at datasheet stats. Trajann is undercosted, but we have NO other datasheets that are grossly undercosted based on raw stats.
We have powerful strats yes, but we lost alot of really powerful strats and had a few nerfed as well. The 2 strats people complain about are now cheaper on 3 man units (of which i can say bikes might cause an issue value-wise compared to other stuff) but are appropriately costed compared to any other armies strats.
The ka'tahs are probably where we see a rules bloat issue. Its another free rule that we dont pay points for. However, they are only useful conditionally.
I have lost game with custodes and its not because im a bad player. I have played against good opponents but I acctually do roll below average quite often (think 3/5 turns in most games).
Eihnlazer wrote: I never said all custodes players were using weighted dice, nor did i name any players.
I implied that tournament players could be using weighted dice (4+ is all you need and its fairly easy to do) and that would HEAVILY affect win-rates.
No. You made a definite statement. Here comes the backpedaling. You said something *realll* stupid, and are trying to step away from it.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im not even trying to deny the win rates are high. Im saying do an actual comparison on datasheets with custodes models to other factions and tell me we are undercosted.
Custodes are over overpointed if you just look at datasheet stats. Trajann is undercosted, but we have NO other datasheets that are grossly undercosted based on raw stats.
How are you defining that? Compared to what?
Eihnlazer wrote: I have lost game with custodes and its not because im a bad player. I have played against good opponents but I acctually do roll below average quite often (think 3/5 turns in most games).
If you say you "roll below average quite often" then you don't have a sober enough appreciation of what's going on to evaluate the game. Dice are random, unless weighted; players do not have luck.
Saying i made a statement means nothing without context. Read my "statement" and tell me where my above responce was backpedaling.
Look you can tell me i just suck all day and it wont prove anything. Play against me if you want to witness how bad I roll.
Just last year i lost 3 games in major GT's because of dice (admitted by my opponents). I was actually in the running for best in faction custodes last year for a bit.
I then ran out of money due to covid and medical gak and could not attend any more tournaments.
Eihnlazer wrote: Saying i made a statement means nothing without context. Read my "statement" and tell me where my above responce was backpedaling.
If you're not willing to admit it that's fine, but everyone else can see it.
Eihnlazer wrote: Look you can tell me i just suck all day and it wont prove anything. Play against me if you want to witness how bad I roll.
If you've had below-average rolls in the past, it doesn't mean anything about how well you'll roll in the future.
People who complain that they have "worse luck" than other players typically just don't understand the game. Good play involves minimizing the effects of bad luck on yourself by choosing the situations you get into; people who don't understand what are good and bad decisions in the game will think they had bad luck, and think they have consistent bad luck, when in fact they're consistently making bad decisions.
Nobody had bad luck, actually. If you sit around rolling dice, while there may be occasional spikes, it will even out over large amounts of dice rolled.
I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.
Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.
It doesnt filter them out at all. When i roll above average i absolutely demolish my opponents (no matter who they are).
I just happen to roll bad more often than good.
Telling me i dont understand the game is laughable. I work at a casino and know more about probabilities than anyone without a degree in mathmatics. I know exactly how averages work, which is why I know I roll worse than average.
Eihnlazer wrote: It doesnt filter them out at all. When i roll above average i absolutely demolish my opponents (no matter who they are).
I just happen to roll bad more often than good.
Telling me i dont understand the game is laughable. I work at a casino and know more about probabilities than anyone without a degree in mathmatics. I know exactly how averages work, which is why I know I roll worse than average.
I don't have a degree in mathematics and I know more than you. I know that you can't say that you "roll" worse than average, even if you have rolled worse than average in the past.
If you're losing with Custodes when everyone else is winning you're probably not that good at the game, or don't make winning a priority in listbuilding.
Eihnlazer wrote: It doesnt filter them out at all. When i roll above average i absolutely demolish my opponents (no matter who they are).
Clearly none of your opponents have ever rolled above average during the same game you were hot in.
Eihnlazer wrote: Telling me i dont understand the game is laughable. I work at a casino and know more about probabilities than anyone without a degree in mathmatics.
Yep, except for all those other people with similar jobs. Or those people who're just plain talented. Or that other dog on the internet....
Sim-Life wrote: I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.
Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.
I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.
Sim-Life wrote: I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.
Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.
I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.
Firstly nice to see you back Karol.
Secondly it sucks that guy screwed up but a sporting injury isn't the same as dice averages so it's not compatible. One game you might roll like garbage and in another you might roll well. Your brain is programmed to remember the bad game more than the good because it made you feel bad and it wants to avoid that situation again. It's not a case of specific instances moreso than it is global averages.
I also like the lack of self-awareness of the person defending Custodes as not OP by using the argument "they're only not OP because I roll badly, but when I roll well they demolish everyone". Read what you just wrote dude.
Sim-Life wrote: I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.
Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.
I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.
Again, you're missing the point purposefully in an effort to paint Poland as a dystopian hellhole.
You can lose a game due to bad luck. But that's not the same as saying a player has good kr bad luck - their next game might be amazing!
Sim-Life wrote: I like how we've now reached the "1v1 me in Rust bro" defence.
Also "I lose because my dice are bad" is just cognitive bias on your part. Peoples brains are wired to remember negative bias more than positive, so you only think your luck is bad because your brain filters out the times they were good.
I had a guy from my class lose his scholarship and then drop out of school, because in first two matchs he had he slipped, the second slip was so bad he injured his wrist, so he had to drop out and the even was a qualifire. He was one of the top 3 guys in my weight bracket in the entire wojewodship and practicaly had a garenteed spot in a state run sport university. I don't think his memories just like mr Hecatons somehow filter out the good, and leave the bad. If you lose 3 games at a GT because of a bad roll, you lose it because of a bad roll. There were match ups a few months ago where, if playing vs DE you didn't go first you would lose the game on math probability alone. even if in the end all rolls should go 50/50, assuming perfect dice, it doesn't change the fact that rolling 10 6's in a game of lets check how my unit does vs enemy, does not balance out rolling 10 1's in the game which decides if you go top8 or drop below 16 spot.
Firstly nice to see you back Karol.
Secondly it sucks that guy screwed up but a sporting injury isn't the same as dice averages so it's not compatible. One game you might roll like garbage and in another you might roll well. Your brain is programmed to remember the bad game more than the good because it made you feel bad and it wants to avoid that situation again. It's not a case of specific instances moreso than it is global averages.
I also like the lack of self-awareness of the person defending Custodes as not OP by using the argument "they're only not OP because I roll badly, but when I roll well they demolish everyone". Read what you just wrote dude.
Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.
I then talked in defence of me loosing games by explaining my bad dice rolls and somehow that became the reason custodes werent OP............
Since your obviously just looking for some way to turn my words against me and not actually trying to figure out what I said im gonna leave you to your own mess.
There is no next game, when you lost scholarship and didn't get in to a sports school of next rank. That is litterally what qualifires are for.
GW events tournaments are the same. No one cares if durning testing someone won 99 out of 100 games vs this specific match up. If durning an event you lose a game, you lose it. And by the way for the scoring, aside for being disqualified, it doesn't matter if you lost by lack of skill, the opponent being more skilled or losing by a random roll of a dice.
Also winning your 3ed or 4th bout is kind of a meth too. Who cares if you win those games, when your at the bottom half of the bracket in to loser part of the event. I guess for w40k the problem of sponsorship doesn't exist yet, but in general no one is going to watch or care that someone who went 0:3, devasted his opponent in round 4. Because people are interested in top players and top players, playing the best w40k there is.
Based on how 40k is structured, it's indeed very easily possible that someone rolls poorly on the specific rolls that actually matter for a game. There are lots and lots of rolls in a game, but some of them have a much greater influence than others. We've already seen the roll to go first mentioned, but also things like damage rolls on big models make a huge difference (if you hit their warlord for D6, and it has 6 wounds, there is this small chance of just blowing it up right away. So in that case, the 6 would be a lucky roll with a huge impact. But if you instead roll a 6 to hit with some random gun, it just doesn't matter).
So yes, I can easily believe that a couple of bad (or good) rolls can have a huge impact on the game. Some of those things have been taken out of the game (like break tests and vehicle damage tables) but many still remain. And armies that roll less dice because of their size will see more of that sort of thing.
That said, I don't believe in people rolling better or worse in general. Sure, they will have hot and cold games, but no one is simply lucky or unlucky. We just have a ton of confirmation biases.
Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.
Why does that matter? We have a lot of tournament data now that's pointing to Custodes (and Tau) being at least Drukhari levels of broken, possibly worse. One of your arguments was weighted dice could explain that, which is so comically misguided it's hard to take anything you say seriously, especially if you continue to maintain there's nothing wrong with Custodes in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Karol wrote: There is no next game, when you lost scholarship and didn't get in to a sports school of next rank. That is litterally what qualifires are for.
GW events tournaments are the same. No one cares if durning testing someone won 99 out of 100 games vs this specific match up. If durning an event you lose a game, you lose it. And by the way for the scoring, aside for being disqualified, it doesn't matter if you lost by lack of skill, the opponent being more skilled or losing by a random roll of a dice.
Also winning your 3ed or 4th bout is kind of a meth too. Who cares if you win those games, when your at the bottom half of the bracket in to loser part of the event. I guess for w40k the problem of sponsorship doesn't exist yet, but in general no one is going to watch or care that someone who went 0:3, devasted his opponent in round 4. Because people are interested in top players and top players, playing the best w40k there is.
I get that you view stuff through a lens if sports but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and it isn't comparible because luck plays a very small part in physical sport. In terms of cognitive bias rolling bad at a GT will be more at the forefront of your mind than the time you rolled incredibly well during a practice game. Because you remember the GT more it doesn't mean you ALWAYS roll bad, you just think you do because your brain tells you you do.
Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.
Let us not forget that you offered two ridiculous answers to begin with which did lead this thread on a wild tangent.
There is actually a good thread going strong on r/warhammercompetitive where people who play the army are discussing things that are overpowered and what is underpowered within the army itself and how GW might address them. I suggest reading over it. Some you might agree with, others disagree.
Trajan is 160 and Typhus is 165. The power level between the two is night and day. He basically overperforms relatively to all the big faction hero models. Death Guard would need severe point drops just to compete on the same table as Custodes.
It also doesn't change the fact that earlier you listed the majority of factions having problems with Custodes. How can Custodes not be OP when they dominate the majority of 40k factions? I honestly feel like there is a weird disconnect in your writings, and I do not say this to offend, but to express genuine perplexity as you have written statements that support people's assertions that Custodes are OP while at the same time you express that Custodes aren't that good.
I get that you view stuff through a lens if sports but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about and it isn't comparible because luck plays a very small part in physical sport. In terms of cognitive bias rolling bad at a GT will be more at the forefront of your mind than the time you rolled incredibly well during a practice game. Because you remember the GT more it doesn't mean you ALWAYS roll bad, you just think you do because your brain tells you you do.
you have not been in events that have buckets then. Death groups are a thing. If you have a big championship and you end up pulling dudes from Kazakstan or Tajikistan you can, and some people do, fake injuries just to not fight them. they are masters of the craft and make you look like a fool. And there is stuff like purging going bad, and you suddenly get DQed for substance abuse, or you drink/eat something you get from the hotel or your trainer and the next day you are sick. We had the entire team go AWOL just because they washed their mouths and teeth with uncooked water in bulgaria.
But what I think is that you are talking about probabilities and I talk about reality. If someone lost important placings in a GT, because of bad rolls they are going to remember it. Heck they are teachers at my school who had career ending injuries over 30 years ago, and they talk about it every 30 min durning training, warm up , supplement taking etc. Now does that mean that everyone is going to suffer an injury like that at the age of 19-20? of course not. But it does not change them having the expiriance. Plus like with everything the past won games don't matter. The only ones that do are those in the future or the one you are playing right now.
But you are right, being in sports also makes me highly supersticious. And it very much affect people performance. I have seen a Lithuanian guy try to beat up his team m8s and trainer, for someone using his "lucky" chalk. And he did lose the next 3 bouts in the event.
But to be more on topic. Are custodes too OP? Probably, they will be for sure, if they stay at the win rates for another 4-6 weeks. Will tau,eldar or upcoming books balance them out? possibly the only real question is, When the custodes nerf come in 3-6months, are they going to be just custodes nerfs , will they be extremly heavy handed like the SoB ones and will this mean that sudden lack of OP custodes ends up with people getting to enjoy 70% win rate tau, eldar or something else. What would be really bad is if we had no changes to custodes in 3 months and then get unsubstential ones in 6, and then at the 9 month mark end up DE style big nerf, which only makes Custodes switch from playing units X and Y to Z and Q.
EightFoldPath wrote: I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?
Heck, most "lucky rituals" (like lucky chalk) in sports aren't even really "luck" it's more to try and get your head into the psychological space you need to be in to win. We may not recognize those things when we commit to them buy we subconciously flip a switch while doing them.
So yeah, luck can play a part in games, especially dce b ased one s, but luck mitigation is taught by high level players for a reason. It's also why mathhammer is used so often when making comparisons as it removes luck and shows generally what you can expect out of a unit allowing you too better compare things.
EightFoldPath wrote: I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?
The argument surely is that being "good" creates luck. If the odds are in your favour, the outcome you want is more likely to turn up.
But the idea dice will average out - in a game, in a tournament, or even over say 6 months is nonsense.
When you look at games between the top players it often does come down to dice.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
EightFoldPath wrote: I've never met a good player who thinks bad luck exists. Is it a better grasp of probability? A better grasp of reality? Who knows?
The argument surely is that being "good" creates luck. If the odds are in your favour, the outcome you want is more likely to turn up.
But the idea dice will average out - in a game, in a tournament, or even over say 6 months is nonsense.
When you look at games between the top players it often does come down to dice.
Actually, it's the other way around. The top players try to make it so the dice really don't matter.
For example, they don't use Median/Avg, that's just a tool for a general guide on how a unit performs. In game, they usually do how a unit will perform 80% of the time, then they have a backup for when they have that 20%.
It's one of the reasons that 5 dice hitting on 2s with a re-roll is far better than 12 shots hitting on 4s. The 12 shots have a better average (6), but the reduced variability of the 5 shots means you can count on hitting with 4 out of 5 shots when you need it.
Edit.
I realized after typing the above post that there's a better way to describe the game. Normally the faction imbalance causes the players to turn against those bad factions. The game is so bad right now the players are turning against each other.
I don't think I've ever seen a player so disingenuous.
Yes you can totally loose a game because of bad luck. Especially if your poor rolls are on very important events.
Now, maybe he's not a bad player, or maybe he is, but saying a faction is not strong because he lost most of his matches while simultaneously admitting you had poor rolls is beyond idiotic.
Either you did have terrible luck these games, in that case you have not made enough games for your data to be relevant at all. Or you're just straight up bad.
brainpsyk wrote: I realized after typing the above post that there's a better way to describe the game. Normally the faction imbalance causes the players to turn against those bad factions. The game is so bad right now the players are turning against each other.
brainpsyk wrote: Actually, it's the other way around. The top players try to make it so the dice really don't matter.
For example, they don't use Median/Avg, that's just a tool for a general guide on how a unit performs. In game, they usually do how a unit will perform 80% of the time, then they have a backup for when they have that 20%.
It's one of the reasons that 5 dice hitting on 2s with a re-roll is far better than 12 shots hitting on 4s. The 12 shots have a better average (6), but the reduced variability of the 5 shots means you can count on hitting with 4 out of 5 shots when you need it.
Yes - although I'm not really sure how this goes against what I said.
As I think you are saying - the point is that you make decisions, such that you end up in a situation where what you need will turn up 80-90% of the time. And generally speaking yes, top players prefer reliability and consistency over possibly rolling hot.
And sure they'll probably have some cover for the bad 10-20% of times - but sometimes that fails as well.
When you have two players with top lists, making broadly speaking the "correct" moves, the game often swings on a few dice. I don't think you can claim that say not making a charge, or getting terrible advance rolls, failing a psychic test, or just not killing a unit that you'd expect to die 5 times in 6 (or inversely, making say no saves so a unit does die when it shouldn't) doesn't swing games.
Its the same thing with poker. Top players don't just rely on being lucky - but luck undoubtedly matters.
Dolnikan wrote: Based on how 40k is structured, it's indeed very easily possible that someone rolls poorly on the specific rolls that actually matter for a game. There are lots and lots of rolls in a game, but some of them have a much greater influence than others. We've already seen the roll to go first mentioned, but also things like damage rolls on big models make a huge difference (if you hit their warlord for D6, and it has 6 wounds, there is this small chance of just blowing it up right away. So in that case, the 6 would be a lucky roll with a huge impact. But if you instead roll a 6 to hit with some random gun, it just doesn't matter).
So yes, I can easily believe that a couple of bad (or good) rolls can have a huge impact on the game. Some of those things have been taken out of the game (like break tests and vehicle damage tables) but many still remain. And armies that roll less dice because of their size will see more of that sort of thing.
That said, I don't believe in people rolling better or worse in general. Sure, they will have hot and cold games, but no one is simply lucky or unlucky. We just have a ton of confirmation biases.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success.
Dolnikan wrote: Based on how 40k is structured, it's indeed very easily possible that someone rolls poorly on the specific rolls that actually matter for a game. There are lots and lots of rolls in a game, but some of them have a much greater influence than others. We've already seen the roll to go first mentioned, but also things like damage rolls on big models make a huge difference (if you hit their warlord for D6, and it has 6 wounds, there is this small chance of just blowing it up right away. So in that case, the 6 would be a lucky roll with a huge impact. But if you instead roll a 6 to hit with some random gun, it just doesn't matter).
So yes, I can easily believe that a couple of bad (or good) rolls can have a huge impact on the game. Some of those things have been taken out of the game (like break tests and vehicle damage tables) but many still remain. And armies that roll less dice because of their size will see more of that sort of thing.
That said, I don't believe in people rolling better or worse in general. Sure, they will have hot and cold games, but no one is simply lucky or unlucky. We just have a ton of confirmation biases.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success.
100%. Good players don't rely on dice rolls to win games, but on strategy (from list building to actual playing at the table).
Then dice rolls can influence the performance, but they are not the main reason why a player wins or loses those many matches over time.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
Its all confirmation bias, you'll remember the 6's and 1's more than the 3-4.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
Our casino employed friend can probably tell you this but in Craps (and most dice based gambling games) the roll doesn't count unless you bounce the dice off a surface because otherwise the roll isn't considered a truly random roll.
Sim-Life wrote: Our casino employed friend can probably tell you this but in Craps (and most dice based gambling games) the roll doesn't count unless you bounce the dice off a surface because otherwise the roll isn't considered a truly random roll.
Been playing a lot of MESBG lately and there it is mostly single rolls so you can really notice a trend during a game. Last game I had we drawed in a rather hilarious way and we both agreed that it is good we didn't play 40k the way the rolls were going.
Over the whole game we probably had a rather average distribution of rolls but we both got our 1-2s and 5-6s in very specific instances repeated over the course of the game. But since killing is difficult in the game bad luck in certain aspects isn't nearly as crippling as it can be in 40k, where you can lose half your army if you are rolling below average and your opponent rolls a bit above average.
We had perhaps 60-80 shots from my opponent only managing to kill 2 of his own guys and none of mine in ridiculously bad shooting rolls. But also he had lone moria goblin archers killing Uruk Hai berserkers supported by pikes in close combat multiple times. Extremely swingy game due to die rolls. But a swingy turn in mesbg maybe changes casualties from 5% from each force to an 8-10%/0-2% so you can still have comebacks.
The dice definitely decided that game in his favor since he did a few really bad plays and even though the average roll was probably average what decided stuff was really when each die decided to roll a 6 or not. His got spread out while mine usually came in pairs or triples when one was all that was needed. Usually needed one 5+ out of 2 or 3 dice and quite often got all of those 5+ or none.
So sometimes games can be decided on "bad" rolls but it is not every time you actually see it happen. Most of the time you only think it happens due to various biases.
In 40k so many off the die rolls and their result doesnt have much impact so only those that really stand out or really matter is remembered. Like if you shoot 40 shots that hits on 3s, wounds on 4s and do mortal wounds on 6s people usually only take notice of those that on the second roll were sixes. If we add in a few rerolls we had maybe around 80 thrown dice in total and they might on average have been low but that 1 extra 6 above the average amount of sixes on the to wound roll is all that gets registered and seen as rolling hot. Only 6-10 out of those 80 is registered.
A guy at the club always complains about his dice and even gave away his set after a "bad" game. I like to spectate his games and look at his rolls because his problem isn't that he rolls bad, I haven't ever seen him actually have a bad game when it comes to dice, but that he has no idea what the expected result of a roll should be. The game he gave away his bad dice he rolled above average for almost every batch of dice he tossed during the whole game. The final straw for him was when he "only" made 4 out of 7 saves on a 4+. He usually plays Guard and for some reason expects to hit, wound and save about as well as his most common opponent who is a marine player. So if he have a worse hit % than his opponent then he rolls bad......
When it comes to better tournament players, blame on dice is usually quite rare from my experience. But it does happen from time to time that it was mostly all dice going wrong, Like 3 perils of the warp in a row or multiple short charges all failing etc.
Firstly nice to see you back Karol.
Secondly it sucks that guy screwed up but a sporting injury isn't the same as dice averages so it's not compatible. One game you might roll like garbage and in another you might roll well. Your brain is programmed to remember the bad game more than the good because it made you feel bad and it wants to avoid that situation again. It's not a case of specific instances moreso than it is global averages.
I also like the lack of self-awareness of the person defending Custodes as not OP by using the argument "they're only not OP because I roll badly, but when I roll well they demolish everyone". Read what you just wrote dude.
Thanks,Tough year in general. Preping for end school exam and trying to aquire a spot in a state sports university is no joke, on top of war state, covid etc Had zero time to play or even go online, if I wasn't in school training, I was working at home just to get more mass. Too many guys in my weight cathegory.
The few years spent on w40k finaly tought me, and I think mr Atticus explained it to me the best, that GW doesn't care about balance, rules save for stuff that maybe may impact their stuff in a negative way. They really do think that people will buy new models, just because they are new. And the biggest of it all is that while here this may not be true, it seems to be true all around the world. Or at least in the important markets. I also noticed some paterns among people that are , in general happy with the game or rather GW games. I think that and what happened after marines got their 2.0 codex supplements tought me a valuble lesson about life.
Now, I would of course like codex to be more balanced. And specially for there to not be armies that are take this X unit and nothing else. Because those armies and their players live on a very short timer, and when they get nerfed they disolve. Maybe the way to deal with w40k is to make everything broken, and by that I mean super efficient and super deadly. Games would be faster that is one thing, and book keeping would be less, because of how everything dies super fast. At first glance this could be a bad thing for the crusade, narrative, open etc folk. But they could just limit the builds, the AP, the number of shots, stacking buffs etc. Something they technically already do. In the end I think the expiriance of the game, is more important then the percived memory of how the dice went. Specially as it doesn't account for people who really do remember all their rolls.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
those seem playable tbh, try the rubber squig dice lol
They're pretty poor. They're hollow, too light & almost universally have a bur on the 5. Result? They roll for At least those squig dice are very visibly not meant to be rolled - if you do use them you've only yourself to blame.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
those seem playable tbh, try the rubber squig dice lol
They're pretty poor. They're hollow, too light & almost universally have a bur on the 5. Result? They roll for At least those squig dice are very visibly not meant to be rolled - if you do use them you've only yourself to blame.
nothing beats my 8th edition thousand sons dice, nice and chunky and them coming in a pack of 20 makes them pretty ideal for fast calculations.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success...
Semi-related story here: I used to play a Molik Karn assassination list in Warmachine; for the sake of time and trying to stay more on-topic I won't explain exactly what that means, except to tell you that I got good enough at it that I could reliably get Molik Karn where I needed him, and then all I had to do was not whiff either the attack or the damage roll on about seven attacks and I would win the game. While I was playing that I got very angry at the dice all the time, because I knew I was playing exactly correctly and if I lost it was the dice's fault; the realization I came to, in the end, was that I had made a plan that reduced the entire game to that sequence of about seven attacks, and it was entirely my plan that put me in a position where I could easily lose on one bad roll.
In any minis game if you find yourself thinking "I lost because the dice were bad!" what actually happened is that the thing you were trying to do was not as reliable as you thought it was, and you didn't make your plan flexible enough to account for failure.
(The deeper lesson about Warmachine is that assassination is not a strategy, it's an edge-case scenario that only works if your opponent is ineffective at planning to avoid it, but since one of the central failings of Warmachine as a game is that pretty much everything about how it works is an emergent property that you have to play a lot of frustrating games about to reach those profound realizations...)
Daedalus81 wrote: ...It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
There are events that can go badly, but did I over commit? Did I gamble on the outcome? Should I have delayed instead? Similar logic applies to poker. It's pretty random, but there's a skill to success...
Semi-related story here: I used to play a Molik Karn assassination list in Warmachine; for the sake of time and trying to stay more on-topic I won't explain exactly what that means, except to tell you that I got good enough at it that I could reliably get Molik Karn where I needed him, and then all I had to do was not whiff either the attack or the damage roll on about seven attacks and I would win the game. While I was playing that I got very angry at the dice all the time, because I knew I was playing exactly correctly and if I lost it was the dice's fault; the realization I came to, in the end, was that I had made a plan that reduced the entire game to that sequence of about seven attacks, and it was entirely my plan that put me in a position where I could easily lose on one bad roll.
In any minis game if you find yourself thinking "I lost because the dice were bad!" what actually happened is that the thing you were trying to do was not as reliable as you thought it was, and you didn't make your plan flexible enough to account for failure.
(The deeper lesson about Warmachine is that assassination is not a strategy, it's an edge-case scenario that only works if your opponent is ineffective at planning to avoid it, but since one of the central failings of Warmachine as a game is that pretty much everything about how it works is an emergent property that you have to play a lot of frustrating games about to reach those profound realizations...)
I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
Kanluwen wrote: Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.
Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.
A GT in effectively the middle of nowhere, with how many people showing up?
Seriously. How many people actually showed up for 40k? I couldn't find numbers. I did think it was a bit interesting that as of their Open Day 1 summary they had a full 20+ people who were "undefeated".
175 players showed up...so a lot? And "effectively in the middle of nowhere" Cherokee NC isn't really "nowhere" its actually a fairly popular tourist destination thanks to the Casino, not to mention Asheville is about an hour away and so is gatlinburg, another big tourist area and Knoxville is about an hour and a half away. its also in a touristy area of NC where people like to go to vacation in the Mountains. Its definitely not Las Vegas but its got a lot of things to do and see and that is coming from someone who hates NC
But its also a Grand Tournament that has historically drawn large crowds and has players from around the country who fly in to play. So its a fairly important event. For comparison, Adepticon which is heralded as one of the most important Events in 40k tournament scene, in 2019 attracted 258 attendees. So saying a tournament with 175 is irrelevant is kind of disingenuous if nothing else.
SemperMortis wrote: But its also a Grand Tournament that has historically drawn large crowds and has players from around the country who fly in to play. So its a fairly important event. For comparison, Adepticon which is heralded as one of the most important Events in 40k tournament scene, in 2019 attracted 258 attendees. So saying a tournament with 175 is irrelevant is kind of disingenuous if nothing else.
Waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong. Think I'll be waiting a while...
Right..... lack of self awareness. My argument for custodes not being OP was completely ignored actually. I told you to compare datasheets and tell me how they are overcosted and not one person attempted to do so in this thread.
No. We know they're overpowered based on tournament results. Empirically, we know it's true - so if it doesn't come up in the datasheets, there must be some other reason. But you can see it in the datasheets - compare Trajan to anything else in that point range. Or compare Custodes to Bullgryns. Your statement about their points values being fine for their abilities is stunningly ignorant.
Eihnlazer wrote: Since your obviously just looking for some way to turn my words against me and not actually trying to figure out what I said im gonna leave you to your own mess.
Nobody has to turn your words against you, you sabotage your own arguments well enough yourself.
This from the guy who chalked up the high win rates of Custodes to people using weighted dice.
I don't play garagehammer and am in fact a tournament player. I likely have alot more experience than you.
This just makes you come off as worse friend. It just makes me think that you're a shyster trying to downplay his faction's strength to get an advantage. Assuming you're not just delusional.
In general, I certainly agree with the sentiment that "good players make their own luck" by avoiding high-variance outcomes. But this idea that all dice are weighted 100% equally seems bogus to me too. There was a post here a long time ago analyzing Chessex dice -- IIRC, the results involving something like 500 or 1000 rolls of each dice resulted in ~25% 1s. I would not be surprised if this varied from batch to batch.
I found that if I roll in a dice box it feels like I have more average rolls. Perhaps the additional randomization from proper bouncing helps. There's nothing I can do about those single dice rolls though...those are always a butt clencher.
Our casino employed friend can probably tell you this but in Craps (and most dice based gambling games) the roll doesn't count unless you bounce the dice off a surface because otherwise the roll isn't considered a truly random roll.
Yep. And my favorite story to tell was at the GT in baltimore in 99 where we saw a guy friday night bedazzle everyone by having people in the crowd call a number and he'd roll it 100% of the time on 2d6.
Every single time.
There are many many people out there that know how to manipulate dice and if you aren't using a dice tray or tower, I guarantee you that people you know are also doing the same type of tricks at some level.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
All bets are off with GW dice.
Which is a product I really don't understand. I mean, all the weird-looking almost illegible army specific dice. What's wrong with just using simple easy to distinguish dice (although I also have it with some DnD dice sets which have colours that just make them impossible to tell at a glance).
I'm not sure GW faction themed dice were meant to be used seriously for general gameplau. They're probably intended to be used as wound or CP trackers and such.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
I have lost game with custodes and its not because im a bad player. I have played against good opponents but I acctually do roll below average quite often (think 3/5 turns in most games).
Ah yes the "I'm unluckier person than others"
roflmao. Here's the hint. You actually roll same average as every other. If you think otherwise then you ARE in fact bad player.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
I actually had to quit playing Bloodbowl because of this. I know it's not the dice's fault but holy gak I've never been so angry at my dice rolls in a game.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
First rule at playing Bloodbowl: structure your turn roll as few dice as possible.
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
Translation:
"I really suck at this game and refuse to acknowledge that fact."
JNAProductions wrote: I had a post written up about how it's technically possible to get screwed on dice... But then I realized that it was a tangent that added nothing, because I agree with your point.
If you want to learn how you can be screwed over by dice*, just play Bloodbowl.
*Or "learn how you will get the bad outcome about as often as stats would suggest but it never feels fair when it does".
Translation:
"I really suck at this game and refuse to acknowledge that fact."
No, Tyel is making a very different statement from the other poster.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
All bets are off with GW dice.
Which is a product I really don't understand. I mean, all the weird-looking almost illegible army specific dice. What's wrong with just using simple easy to distinguish dice (although I also have it with some DnD dice sets which have colours that just make them impossible to tell at a glance).
To be fair to GW, ever since they switched to whomever is making the Horus Heresy legion dice, their dice have been really good. I think all the dice post-necron codex have been simple pips with a symbol on the 6.
Their only "flaw" (aside from being a little more expensive than other custom dice) is that they have rounded corners and recessed pips, but that's just me being overly picky. Sharp corners cause better randomization on the roll, but that's assuming you're using a proper surface like felt or mousepad material--think casino dice at a craps table.
The dice before that were all pretty much just collectors' items, but they did look pretty sweet despite their lack of functionality.
Dai wrote: This is why i dislike miniwargaming battle reports, so they dont get out of camera view they basically just drop the dice.
It's a wonder batrep channels don't have dice towers considering most stop the dice from wandering out of camera shot and can be used easily with one hand.
Dai wrote: This is why i dislike miniwargaming battle reports, so they dont get out of camera view they basically just drop the dice.
It's a wonder batrep channels don't have dice towers considering most stop the dice from wandering out of camera shot and can be used easily with one hand.
The better ones have a box and dice camera. I feel bad for the guys who have to hold the camera then entire game.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
All bets are off with GW dice.
Which is a product I really don't understand. I mean, all the weird-looking almost illegible army specific dice. What's wrong with just using simple easy to distinguish dice (although I also have it with some DnD dice sets which have colours that just make them impossible to tell at a glance).
To be fair to GW, ever since they switched to whomever is making the Horus Heresy legion dice, their dice have been really good. I think all the dice post-necron codex have been simple pips with a symbol on the 6.
Their only "flaw" (aside from being a little more expensive than other custom dice) is that they have rounded corners and recessed pips, but that's just me being overly picky. Sharp corners cause better randomization on the roll, but that's assuming you're using a proper surface like felt or mousepad material--think casino dice at a craps table.
The dice before that were all pretty much just collectors' items, but they did look pretty sweet despite their lack of functionality.
The important part about the craps table is not just the surface but more so bouncing off the headboard. If your not doing that then you should not be using dice with sharp edges.
Most people I've played with roll dice on the table. If you're using dice with sharp corners, you're going to make people really unhappy as those bounce around towards terrain and figures. (And in some cases the table surface)
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
For thirty five bucks, they should come with two sixes on them and an extra side…
Well.... They technically don't have any 6's. Or 1s for that matter. One facing has a Necron head, the other has a Necron shield.
No explanation of wich is wich # wise.
Eihnlazer wrote: Just as a note, i posted what i feel would be the correct changes to custodes in the tactics area of Custodes.
Yes i know trajann should actually be closer to 200pts, but that raises another issue so I tried for a different kind of fix.
Your "fix" seems to include as many buffs as nerfs. You want to add a wound to Agmatus bikers, double the damage of their bolt cannons, and cut their points, and add a wound to your terminators. And you want to further cut the price of the Orion, and kick the Ares' gun up to 12D and let it ignore invuls?
guess you guys dont know how to read or actually know what your looking at.
Agamatus bikes are currently only 4 wounds instead of the 5 on vertus which was probably an oversight. They also cost more than Vertus praetors and do alot less damage. They obviously need some kind of fix.
As for my ares changes, i gave an option of either giving it +1 shot on its main gun, or making it ONE shot at D12 ignore invuns. So either a reduced damage output with more reliabilty or more potential damage. Im not sure which is a better option but either is better than the current.
Eihnlazer wrote: guess you guys dont know how to read or actually know what your looking at.
Oh, we can read just fine, and we can see what you're trying to do....
Agamatus bikes are currently only 4 wounds instead of the 5 on vertus which was probably an oversight. They also cost more than Vertus praetors and do alot less damage. They obviously need some kind of fix.
You're right, there was an oversight that needs to be fixed: Vertus Paetors are too cheap. They need a price increase, not a decrease for the other bikes. Make the Paetors more expensive than the Agamatus, get some better internal balance going. The Praetors are already considered one of Custodes best units, if not the best. One of the reasons for that is they're too cheap for what they do. Making the Agamatus too cheap as well, doesn't fix anything.
As for my ares changes, i gave an option of either giving it +1 shot on its main gun, or making it ONE shot at D12 ignore invuns. So either a reduced damage output with more reliabilty or more potential damage. Im not sure which is a better option but either is better than the current.
There's nothing to "fix". The Ares is fine. You already have the advantage of having your LoWs misappropriated in the FLYER FOC slot, dodging the disadvantages of LoWs. Stop trying to make your broken faction more broken.
The ares is easily overcosted comparing it to any other large centerpiece model in the 400+ range.
They dropped it by 50pts, which was fine, but its still far too unreliable for a 400pt model.
As for the whole misappropriated in the flyer slot thing, thats not as cut and dry as you make it.
With flyer's being limited to 2 max instead of 3 in a superheavy detachment, the only issue i see is that noone would ever want to spam ares since they just arent that good currently.
They need either more reliability, or more potential output to make them worth the price tag.
Eihnlazer wrote: The ares is easily overcosted comparing it to any other large centerpiece model in the 400+ range.
They dropped it by 50pts, which was fine, but its still far too unreliable for a 400pt model.
As for the whole misappropriated in the flyer slot thing, thats not as cut and dry as you make it.
With flyer's being limited to 2 max instead of 3 in a superheavy detachment, the only issue i see is that noone would ever want to spam ares since they just arent that good currently.
They need either more reliability, or more potential output to make them worth the price tag.
Overcosted?
400 PPM gets you 22 T8 3+ 5++ wounds, FLY, BS2, Hard To Hit, Hover Jet, MW dealing bombs on anything you happen to move over, D3 S14 AP-4 Dd3+6 Magna Blaze Cannon shots, two Heavy Blaze Cannons, and enough movement to hit anything on the table. It's an absolute steal compared to most other LoWs. And those stats should absolutely put it in the LoWFOC slot.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not angry about your suggestions, I just find them funny. As ccs pointed out, you don't write the rules, so this won't be happening.
It's my personal philosophy that if I ever blame the dice I stopped trying to learn.
You've never played a game with these wretched pieces of crap, have you?
All bets are off with GW dice.
Which is a product I really don't understand. I mean, all the weird-looking almost illegible army specific dice. What's wrong with just using simple easy to distinguish dice (although I also have it with some DnD dice sets which have colours that just make them impossible to tell at a glance).
To be fair to GW, ever since they switched to whomever is making the Horus Heresy legion dice, their dice have been really good. I think all the dice post-necron codex have been simple pips with a symbol on the 6.
Their only "flaw" (aside from being a little more expensive than other custom dice) is that they have rounded corners and recessed pips, but that's just me being overly picky. Sharp corners cause better randomization on the roll, but that's assuming you're using a proper surface like felt or mousepad material--think casino dice at a craps table.
The dice before that were all pretty much just collectors' items, but they did look pretty sweet despite their lack of functionality.
The important part about the craps table is not just the surface but more so bouncing off the headboard. If your not doing that then you should not be using dice with sharp edges.
I disagree; the dice should be as deadly as the setting. If they can't serve as fully functional caltrops they aren't sharp enough.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I disagree; the dice should be as deadly as the setting. If they can't serve as fully functional caltrops they aren't sharp enough.
If you need caltrops, break out the classic d4, my friend.
As for the less practical GW dice - as the ones released during 9th seem usable, from memory (and from the AdMech set nearby), I'd say they're better used as trackers or markers than for rolling.
Eihnlazer wrote: Just as a note, i posted what i feel would be the correct changes to custodes in the tactics area of Custodes.
Yes i know trajann should actually be closer to 200pts, but that raises another issue so I tried for a different kind of fix.
Yes, truly the way to fix Trajan is a whole extra 5 points to his cost, making him the same as Dante who is clearly equally powerful
I had thought all the Custodes players who can't see how busted their Codex is was a bit of a myth but I see I was wrong, they are alive and well as shown by Exhibit A here.
If you're going to fix Custodes from their current position they need significant points increases to bikes in general and salvo launchers specifically and Trajan at a bare minimum. Possibly also remove Core from bikes. Their strats also need looked at. Transhuman may be 1CP on <5 models for other armies but those armies aren't using T5, W3, 2+ 4++ models as the baseline for their units. EC needs looking at too. It's far too good and is pushing out basically every other sub-faction after people dabbled with Shadowkeepers for a bit before deciding EC was clearly the best.
The problem with Custodes is the fixes probably need to be multi-faceted, which makes getting them right much harder.
I mean, aside for those books that were not busted or were busted in reverse, most people claim that their faction is never busted and that it is the other ones that are or were just as bad.
I mean there were claims that DEs just need some times for people to adjust and "find ways of countering them". And when it was collectivlly found out that the way to counter them is to play just as busted army builds, and that the nerf to those builds catapulted DE back to the top, what people were posting was still mostly wait and see stuff.
The problem with any changes is that GW is reacting and countering metas which either no longer exist, or which were a problem in prior editions. Sometimes this gives us something like an over reaction codex in the form of necron, at other times it gives us something like the -1D on monsters with invs/fnp meta, and then the reaction to it in form of anti inv stuff. I assume in GWs mind every new player should not care, because they are too busy painting their first armies, and everyone else should just adapt by jumping to one of the multiple armies they have or if they don't have any good armies right now, play a different fun army from another of GW systems.
also the way GW over corrects is also rather bad. While I understand why something like ors or SoB needed changes, with GW much too often it ends with illegal armies or armies which maybe legal, after droping a unit or two, but which just don't work.
The custodes codex, the way GW fixs stuff, is unfixable. They would have to rewrite the whole thing, and they don't do stuff like that with new books. Now they can nerf custodes in to the ground, make them much weaker then other good armies. But IMO if people could live with months of DE, they will be able to live with custodes for some time too.
The 40k fight club podcast, episode 5 has gone through the statistics of T'au and Custodes tournament results and they are pretty horrible for anyone not playing those two factions.
Going into a much stronger set of armies they're even putting the win rate of pre nerf, liquidiser spam, drukhari to shame.
Both sitting at a 70%+ winrate once you take out the mirror match/T'au Vs Custodes matches.
Eihnlazer wrote: im sure everyone has units they know need fixing in their own codex's.
Which you are more than welcome to do...after a flat 30% nerf to all Custodes units. And the removal of the 4++ MW shrug on EC. You can have +1 leadership instead.
Eihnlazer wrote: im sure everyone has units they know need fixing in their own codex's.
Which you are more than welcome to do...after a flat 30% nerf to all Custodes units. And the removal of the 4++ MW shrug on EC. You can have +1 leadership instead.
I am definitely biased against the MW shrug. It definitely screws internal balance of the book when they can also pick up other traits when they need to.
At the same time I know I can drop 9 to 12 MW on a whim and without it I could probably do really well against 3 mans. Maybe a 5+++ wound be fine? I dunno.
Eihnlazer wrote: im sure everyone has units they know need fixing in their own codex's.
Which you are more than welcome to do...after a flat 30% nerf to all Custodes units. And the removal of the 4++ MW shrug on EC. You can have +1 leadership instead.
I am definitely biased against the MW shrug. It definitely screws internal balance of the book when they can also pick up other traits when they need to.
At the same time I know I can drop 9 to 12 MW on a whim and without it I could probably do really well against 3 mans. Maybe a 5+++ wound be fine? I dunno.
GW is clearly comfortable with hard counters in the game. CA2022 exemplified this. The changes to Sisters in CA2022 and the Feb Balance slate have left them in a spot where if your opponent has more than 2 units that ignore LoS, you can pretty much just shake hands and go get an early lunch. According to your own stats from the other thread, AM have this same conundrum when they line up against astartes. Why shouldn't a Custodes player instantly lose when he lines up against Tsons?
So why should Custodes, whose weakness SHOULD be mortal wounds, be able to just go 'naw son, not weak to NOTHIN!' and declare themselves invulnerable? At this point, ALL mortal wound defense should be removed from Custodes. Did you line up against a Smite Spam army? Tough cookies. I had to play Tau smart missiles round one, you can deal with auto-loss games too.
Over here trying to ask people to not bring competitive lists is seen as insulting by a great many players in the pool and generates a lot of anger and drama.
)
