Switch Theme:

LVO Results 40k vs. AoS.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




So as LVO wraps up, we're starting to see a big difference between balance at the high end for AoS vs 40k. The current top 8 in 40k is represented by 5 codex marine lists, 1 eldar soup list, 1 ork list, and 1 Imperium soup list. If you extend that out to top 16 you add 3 MAYBE 4 factions ( I don't have access to their full lists at the moment but with the way they're listed in BCP only 3-4 even COULD be something other than codex marines). That's a total of 8 factions MAXIMUM in the top 16 with NINE of them being marine lists.

AoS Champ's top 8 are comprised of 7 different factions. Extend that out to top 16 and you end up with 12 different factions total, with no faction being represented more than twice.

So why does AoS have FAR healthier factional diversity than 40k? Here's my take:

1. Marines are too strong. I don't think I'm being controversial saying that at this point but it's the biggest reason for the particular spread that we have but it's not EVERY reason. Keep in mind that Slaanesh in AoS was considered to be extremely OP before the recent nerfs and yet NEVER managed anywhere near the representation marines are getting. Usually taking 3 or 4 out of the top 16 AT MOST.

1b. Marines have too many goddam units. Their toolkit is so big that SOMETHING is likely to be significantly over the powercurve at any different moment.

2. Clearer army identity. While AoS DOES have allies, armies are much more clearly designed to work best within their own books and take far better advantage of the keyword system to curb abuses than 40k does. The new Sacred Rights/Super Doctrines system is a step in the right direction in this regard, but is not something they've managed to nail down yet.

3. Forgeworld. AoS has almost no forgeworld support, and what they do have is incredibly mediocre. 40k has TONS of forgeworld support that is not evenly distributed AT ALL. Forgeworld will always have the potential to massively skew the competitive landscape due to the simple fact that it supports Marines and Chaos FAR more than other factions, with some factions like Sisters and Dark Eldar having essentially 0 representation. Even if Forgeworld units were perfectly balanced across the board, having a massively larger toolkit will always benefit Marines and Chaos more than the handful of additional options other armies get access to. This combined with the units not being balanced(the forgeworld indexes were an exercise in incompetence) leads to things like underpriced, overpowered Dreadnoughts of all varieties kicking around nearly every table, artificially inflating the power level of already VERY strong marine rules.

The new indexes should hopefully mitigate the issues that come with things like Chaplain Dreads and Leviathan's being significantly outside of the power curve, but it won't do anything to deal with the toolbox issue unless a CRAZY number of units go legends.

4. AoS as a whole, but their codexes specifically, seem to be designed more coherently and with a greater understanding of the game than their 40k equivalents. Compare the release of the Ironhands supplement vs the release of the Hedonites of Slaanesh battletome. Hedonites of Slaanesh released overtuned, though not unmanageable, and the designers admitted that they had thought in playtesting that it might be a bit too strong but wanted to see what players did with it. When they realized it was still significantly overperforming(though again, nowhere near what marines are doing even now) they put in some sensible nerfs and the codex remains powerful but much more vulnerable.

The Ironhands supplement on the other hand released as the single most busted book since CWE in 7th edition, with rumors circulating that playtester advice was ignored because the designers didn't believe the new book made marines strong ENOUGH. This led to ironhands putting up 80% across the board win rates and decimating any event that wasn't at least 50% paint score. This lead to an emergency nerf that was, on paper, pretty massive but left Ironhands as still basically the be all end all of armies in the game until Ravenguard and Imperial Fist came out and now it's just Codex: Space Marines that's massively better than most other armies.

Now GW seems to be addressing THIS too because none of the PA books have broken anything too badly while buffing most factions up at least a bit and the Sisters of Battle Codex representing an AoS style, powerful but with clear weaknesses and very good internal balance Codex release.

5. It's easier to balance a melee game than a shooting game. I'll give GW that one. It's not THIS much harder though.


So while GW is getting a lot better with their overall design paradigm and at addressing their mistakes in a way that's good for the game, they're struggling FAR more with 40k than they do with AoS. The 'Marine Meta' is a symptom of this problem and fixes aren't coming in fast enough.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Marines didn't need the supplement books. In their effort to try and make supplements unique and worth purchasing, they overstepped the boundaries of manageable buff-combos.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ie
Preacher of the Emperor





Well AoS books have been far more spaced apart for releases (or at least it feels like it). People keep forgetting that most of the current codexes were rushed out the door in order to catch everyone up on 8th Ed and give them their strats etc.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






AoS is actually trying to balance the books. They said in the AoS shorts pod cast number 2, that they spent a FULL YEAR working on how to balance their Battletomes for AoS, to make sure everything is RAW and RAI, to make sure its all the same language, and around the same power level (At least 1 of the 3 ways to play for each book). NOTE: i mean 3 ways to play as in 3 different builds, they are trying to get at least 3 different playstyles for each book.. Yes some of the books are more powerful at release, but they do 2 balances, 1 every 6 months and each time the armies are closer and closer to being very well balanced.

Some of the armies that are doing bad are still able to win 4-1. Example, i main Beastmen and i have done 3-2 in a GT even doing perfect scoring games, i have won games vs top armies like HoS at the time, i win against Khorne and IDK as well, even tho its a weaker book.

And even if there is an army that is way out of line, they are know to fix it within the 1st month of release, StD had an insane powerful build that was re-balanced right away, DoT right now just came out and has an insane OP build and i'm 100% sure that will be re-balanced in a couple weeks. So not only is it every 6 months, but battletomes are also patched within the first month as well.

Finally, there are NO VP'S FOR KILLS, Kills are only for ties.

15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well AoS books have been far more spaced apart for releases (or at least it feels like it). People keep forgetting that most of the current codexes were rushed out the door in order to catch everyone up on 8th Ed and give them their strats etc.

AoS books have "been far more spaced apart for releases" because a decent chunk of them have been whole new armies with model releases to go with.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Sim-Life wrote:
Well AoS books have been far more spaced apart for releases (or at least it feels like it). People keep forgetting that most of the current codexes were rushed out the door in order to catch everyone up on 8th Ed and give them their strats etc.


6 books in the last 5 months ish for AoS; StD, KO, DoT, OBR, Mawtribes, Orruks

15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Well AoS books have been far more spaced apart for releases (or at least it feels like it). People keep forgetting that most of the current codexes were rushed out the door in order to catch everyone up on 8th Ed and give them their strats etc.


6 books in the last 5 months ish for AoS; StD, KO, DoT, OBR, Mawtribes, Orruks

Which is some of the fastest pace we've had in awhile for AoS, and of those?
Orruks are combining Ironjawz and Savage Orruks together.
Mawtribes combines Beastclaw Raiders(who had a book) and the other Ogres(who didn't have books)
Slaves to Darkness gives us the title faction(didn't have a book) along with Everchosen(who did).
Disciples of Tzeentch is a 2.0 book as is Overlords.
Bonereapers are a brand new faction.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Are you really blaming FW Dreads for the Iron Hands release?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Amishprn86 wrote:
Finally, there are NO VP'S FOR KILLS, Kills are only for ties.


I don't know much about AoS - so my view be nonsense.
But I'd expect this to be the key factor. Killing is much less important than the mission. Which is why for instance I don't think you get as many mathhammer calculations on AoS units (unless they are egregiously bad).
Its more tempo driven. Unit X will be "good enough" if its in the right place at the right time.

Interestingly Nayden may be about to win this 40k semi-final with very AoS style play that has rendered the mathematics of the Ironhands largely irrelevant as we go into turn 4.

But normally you'd go "oh look, the offensive power of Ironhands or Ravenguard Centurions is so good that 90% of my army is dead after turn 3, that means they are maxed out on secondaries and own the board for holding objectives, GG".

Which isn't to say armies don't annihilate each other in AoS - but movement seems to be the key. Which makes it softer - a bit like CA19. (Which isn't to say Marines don't dominate because of raw power, but still.)
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Tyel wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Finally, there are NO VP'S FOR KILLS, Kills are only for ties.


I don't know much about AoS - so my view be nonsense.
But I'd expect this to be the key factor. Killing is much less important than the mission. Which is why for instance I don't think you get as many mathhammer calculations on AoS units (unless they are egregiously bad).
Its more tempo driven. Unit X will be "good enough" if its in the right place at the right time.

Interestingly Nayden may be about to win this 40k semi-final with very AoS style play that has rendered the mathematics of the Ironhands largely irrelevant as we go into turn 4.

But normally you'd go "oh look, the offensive power of Ironhands or Ravenguard Centurions is so good that 90% of my army is dead after turn 3, that means they are maxed out on secondaries and own the board for holding objectives, GG".

Which isn't to say armies don't annihilate each other in AoS - but movement seems to be the key. Which makes it softer - a bit like CA19. (Which isn't to say Marines don't dominate because of raw power, but still.)


Right, my BoC wins not by killing armies, but by having huge board control and killing the right units at the right time to maintain board control. There is 1 more thing that is different, you can not move within 3" of any unit either, so you can zone out large parts of the board near objectives.

Beastmen are also 1 drop armies, so i go first most the time, and given i can move 15-25" a turn with almost everything, plus i can Outflank anything i want, its easy for me to zone things out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/26 22:04:01


15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

They aren't using official GW rules for 40k so LVO means nothing in terms of indicating the meta.

AoS is using the official mission rules.

Only thing LVO shows is how armies perform in ITC homebrew missions. It's actually staggering that this topic doesn't point out the custom, 3rd party missions as a massive differential.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/26 22:21:37


-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I've recently just gotten back into AOS because the current state of 40k is pretty abysmal. The lack of massively long range weapons is nice. I also like the static dice rolling for to hit and to wound. For instance my clan rats hit on 4+ and wound on 4+ against everything before buffs. Makes it so that all units can be dangerous and nothing is really safe. Also being able to single out buff bots with ranged attacks is pretty huge as well nothing can not be targeted.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

ERJAK wrote:
1. Marines are too strong. I don't think I'm being controversial saying that at this point but it's the biggest reason for the particular spread that we have but it's not EVERY reason. Keep in mind that Slaanesh in AoS was considered to be extremely OP before the recent nerfs and yet NEVER managed anywhere near the representation marines are getting. Usually taking 3 or 4 out of the top 16 AT MOST.

1b. Marines have too many goddam units. Their toolkit is so big that SOMETHING is likely to be significantly over the powercurve at any different moment.

2. Clearer army identity. While AoS DOES have allies, armies are much more clearly designed to work best within their own books and take far better advantage of the keyword system to curb abuses than 40k does. The new Sacred Rights/Super Doctrines system is a step in the right direction in this regard, but is not something they've managed to nail down yet.

These are the two most important aspects.

40K is a Marine game. Horus Heresy/30K is that even stronger (and considered the more balanced game). In Fantasy, Elves had the most representation, with Undead and Humans the next largest. None of the Elves had a similar fighting style other than high Initiative. Undead was even better. Humans had pike & shot versus the court of King Arthur. But looking at Marines, we have standard Marines with Supplements, Marines with some Rage, Marines with Secrets, Wolf Marines, Psyker Marines, and Spiky Marines, with the last two being the only ones with significant diversion across the whole line. The Marines are made powerful because they are the signature/mascot line of 40K, while Fantasy had...??? They tried to make the Sigmarines the mascot line of AoS, but it didn't take off like the Space Marine had with 40K.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




None of the Elves had a similar fighting style other than high Initiative

Elf units were literally copypasta of each other across factions, with the exception that wood elves didn't get bolt throwers, and didn't get the great weapon unit until late. TK and VC overlapped a lot with their skeleton and guard infantry, but diverged over time with monsters and whatnot.

Go back far enough and you'll find (sea elf) wardancers in the 3rd edition high elf list.

hey tried to make the Sigmarines the mascot line of AoS, but it didn't take off like the Space Marine had with 40K.

Mind you, they tried real hard, to the point that Sigmarines are the biggest model line for AoS, with triple the content of a lot of armies, and only a few come close (Cities of Sigmar, Legions of Nagash).
And much like 40k, if you bought box sets, you got Sigmarines. It just hasn't been enough time for the critical mass of people deciding that they can just throw a Sigmarine army together because they've got that much stuff lying around anyway. But if they keep going, it will get there.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/26 23:01:27


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

FWIW the AOS team also seems to have a bit more sense than the 40k team. Not a lot, as AOS is still plagued by the typical GW problems, but it's way better than 40k balance-wise even if it's far from "good".

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




40k is only "a marine game" because Marines are currently top of the pile.

For about 18~ months (say from CA17 to the Marine Codex release) they were essentially nowhere, outside of Guilliman lists. Last year Marines represented just 13.5% of all mono faction lists. This weekend its been about 1/3rd.

If they were to get a hard nerf, things would go back to where they were.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord






Also, when AoS came out it re-invented stat lines...starting with essentially fresh units/armies. GW made 8th and for some reason...felt the need to convert stats almost directly from 7th edition despite changing the game fundamentally. Old stats don't work with the way 8th edition plays and it has caused a gak ton of problems.

GW should have taken 8th as an excuse to fully rethink all of the statlines of major units.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Elbows wrote:
Also, when AoS came out it re-invented stat lines...starting with essentially fresh units/armies. GW made 8th and for some reason...felt the need to convert stats almost directly from 7th edition despite changing the game fundamentally. Old stats don't work with the way 8th edition plays and it has caused a gak ton of problems.

GW should have taken 8th as an excuse to fully rethink all of the statlines of major units.


This, 8th is broken at the core, and they only been trying it patch it via codex's instead of fixing the problems. They did change a couple core rules at least (Ro3, limited factions for detachments, Fly)

15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Go back to before the SM books released and you see a wide variety of armies in 40k tournaments.

I agree that the AoS team does a better job in general and has a better approach to the game (a great example I like is when the mini rulebooks were released. 40k was a strait copy from the out of date rulebook, AoS included all the changes from faq's and general handbooks)

But in broad terms GW simply shat the bed with the Marine release. Its entirely possible the AoS team screws up at some point and releases a horribly broken book that will have the same result. (And I think it looked like that for a while when Slaanesh first came out).

To further add to the problem Space Marines released just before the end of year Faq so they were not in that, leading to about the longest possible time of dominance the codex can get (assuming GW nerfs them in april).

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Tyel wrote:
40k is only "a marine game" because Marines are currently top of the pile.

For about 18~ months (say from CA17 to the Marine Codex release) they were essentially nowhere, outside of Guilliman lists. Last year Marines represented just 13.5% of all mono faction lists. This weekend its been about 1/3rd.

If they were to get a hard nerf, things would go back to where they were.


So, theyre one faction.

Out of what...twenty?

And 2..5x representation from 1/20th of the army lists is a bad thing?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




the_scotsman wrote:
So, theyre one faction.

Out of what...twenty?

And 2..5x representation from 1/20th of the army lists is a bad thing?


I don't understand what you are saying here?
I'm all for nerfing Marines. I was just saying there is this view that 40k is all Marines all the time. We just had a length of time when this wasn't the case.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Tyel wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
So, theyre one faction.

Out of what...twenty?

And 2..5x representation from 1/20th of the army lists is a bad thing?


I don't understand what you are saying here?
I'm all for nerfing Marines. I was just saying there is this view that 40k is all Marines all the time. We just had a length of time when this wasn't the case.


Maybe from a rules perspective. But it has been all marines all of the time since I got back into the game just shy over a year ago. All the books, all the models all the posters all the media. Everything has a space marine on it if it has a 40k logo on it...

I'm beginning to think I might have made a mistake getting back into 40k...The nostalgia has largely worn off and SM/IOM don't interest me for the most part. So what's left for me..? Don't fancy being an NPC faction in a game... That's boring. Ill keep completing my army and doing the hobby side/ enjoying the game. But once I'm done? It'll probably be time for another system rather than another army unless there will be some change in direction.

I think also huge part of the difference is you have the swingy initiative in AOS. So winning is largely due to that roll of the dice to see if you get a double turn. A weaker army can in theory still win thanks to that.

In 40k you have factions with units throwing out something like 60+ dice with re-rolls... The dice game becomes meaningless when you have weight of dice..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin






ERJAK wrote:
So as LVO wraps up, we're starting to see a big difference between balance at the high end for AoS vs 40k. The current top 8 in 40k is represented by 5 codex marine lists, 1 eldar soup list, 1 ork list, and 1 Imperium soup list. If you extend that out to top 16 you add 3 MAYBE 4 factions ( I don't have access to their full lists at the moment but with the way they're listed in BCP only 3-4 even COULD be something other than codex marines). That's a total of 8 factions MAXIMUM in the top 16 with NINE of them being marine lists.

AoS Champ's top 8 are comprised of 7 different factions. Extend that out to top 16 and you end up with 12 different factions total, with no faction being represented more than twice.

4 factions top 8, 5 top 16, 10 top 32. One thing to keep in mind is size of the event, 800ish players is massive, really threading the needle.

1b. Marines have too many goddam units. Their toolkit is so big that SOMETHING is likely to be significantly over the powercurve at any different moment.

True, but a solid testing format and no free rules would make the game a breeze to balance.

4. AoS as a whole, but their codexes specifically, seem to be designed more coherently and with a greater understanding of the game than their 40k equivalents.

The 40k team doesn't even try to build focussed lists for testing or test units in the subfaction they are most effective within.

Now GW seems to be addressing THIS too because none of the PA books have broken anything too badly while buffing most factions up at least a bit and the Sisters of Battle Codex representing an AoS style, powerful but with clear weaknesses and very good internal balance Codex release.

Most factions? Excuse you, a handful of factions. It's gak from a balance stand-point that armies should be getting buffs a couple factions at a time.

So while GW is getting a lot better with their overall ådesign paradigm and at addressing their mistakes in a way that's good for the game, they're struggling FAR more with 40k than they do with AoS. The 'Marine Meta' is a symptom of this problem and fixes aren't coming in fast enough.

They went from Scrooge Mcduck levels of moneygrubbing corperate game design to incompetent fluff driven writing and updates. The only truly good thing is CA and CA19 wasn't even proofread, that is the most important document in the game outside the core rules.

 Ishagu wrote:
They aren't using official GW rules for 40k so LVO means nothing in terms of indicating the meta.

AoS is using the official mission rules.

Only thing LVO shows is how armies perform in ITC homebrew missions. It's actually staggering that this topic doesn't point out the custom, 3rd party missions as a massive differential.

You are trying to obfuscate the power of Marines, it is not working, go play 30k. 40k can be played with any mission format and as the most common tournament format ITC is valuable in determining balance.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/27 00:38:19


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





Marines in 40k have too much of goddamn everything.
Support, models, rules, strats, you name it they have too much of it.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

Voss wrote:
None of the Elves had a similar fighting style other than high Initiative

Elf units were literally copypasta of each other across factions, with the exception that wood elves didn't get bolt throwers, and didn't get the great weapon unit until late. TK and VC overlapped a lot with their skeleton and guard infantry, but diverged over time with monsters and whatnot.

Go back far enough and you'll find (sea elf) wardancers in the 3rd edition high elf list.

Not really when Fantasy died. Oh, if you go back far enough, the changes become fewer and fewer between them all, but even after AoS, we have several different Dwarf factions that still feel a whole lot more different than Blood Angels versus Raven Guard do.

There was a lot of diversity between the elves, with no single unit being available across all three. Sure High and Wood Elves both had archers and High and Dark Elves both had Spearmen, but they really didn't have anything consistent all the way through all the races. Sure, High Elves and Dark Elves both had more in common, but it still was about as different as Empire and Bretonnia when you look at the entire army, and that's not even getting in to the special gear.

TK and VC only had overlaps with one unit, the basic skeleton unit. TK had no heavily armored infantry or cavalry units, while the Vampires had no ranged abilities that weren't magic (or sound). Vampires could create and add units, while TKs could only restore unkilled units' strength. TK used constructs while Vampires used horrors. There really wasn't much overlap at all.

Voss wrote:
They tried to make the Sigmarines the mascot line of AoS, but it didn't take off like the Space Marine had with 40K.

Mind you, they tried real hard, to the point that Sigmarines are the biggest model line for AoS, with triple the content of a lot of armies, and only a few come close (Cities of Sigmar, Legions of Nagash).
And much like 40k, if you bought box sets, you got Sigmarines. It just hasn't been enough time for the critical mass of people deciding that they can just throw a Sigmarine army together because they've got that much stuff lying around anyway. But if they keep going, it will get there.

It might, it might not. A lot will depend on how they take it. If you combine a lot of people's old kits versus this new one, and it not really taking with a lot of the old crowd (and with them disparaging it), I doubt it will take off enough that we have 15 variants (9 Loyal to Sigmar and 6 for Chaos) in 20 years unless it is forced by GW.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Elbows wrote:
Also, when AoS came out it re-invented stat lines...starting with essentially fresh units/armies. GW made 8th and for some reason...felt the need to convert stats almost directly from 7th edition despite changing the game fundamentally. Old stats don't work with the way 8th edition plays and it has caused a gak ton of problems.

GW should have taken 8th as an excuse to fully rethink all of the statlines of major units.


This, 8th is broken at the core, and they only been trying it patch it via codex's instead of fixing the problems. They did change a couple core rules at least (Ro3, limited factions for detachments, Fly)


T1 deepstrike, boots on the ground, CP regen limitations, prepared positions, full deployment, smite fix, beta bolters, and character targeting as well.

GW has hardly been sitting on their hands.

The current issues won't be fixed easily by core changes and some won't be concerned about point changes. GW has to fix the codexes causing the lion's share of problems.

   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





It's gak from a balance stand-point that armies should be getting buffs a couple factions at a time.


Maybe but GW knows people won't buy a single massive 100 dollar book that gives every faction a buff at the same time

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in ca
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Vancouver, BC

Nerfing some of the IH rules and maybe nerfing the Dread damage reduction to only work on 11 wound dreads or less might be the way to go, and see if more nerfs are needed from there.

 warboss wrote:
Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
 
   
Made in us
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel




Douglasville, GA

My personal opinion on where GW went "wrong" with 8th was starting off with such a large pool of options instead of releasing an Index with like 20 units for each Faction that would be far easier to playtest and balance, and then releasing bulkier Codexes over time that they could also properly handle. But I get that they didn't want to alienate their fanbase by saying "here's a new edition of the game, but you can't use a lot of your current stuff with it until later on".
   
Made in us
Morphing Obliterator



The dark hollows of Kentucky

BrianDavion wrote:
It's gak from a balance stand-point that armies should be getting buffs a couple factions at a time.


Maybe but GW knows people won't buy a single massive 100 dollar book that gives every faction a buff at the same time

And yet they expect us to spend $40 on roughly 6 pages of rules?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: