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.

So Custodes and Tau are pulling some very impressive numbers recently, too impressive in fact. Both factions are likely to get adjusted down the line, whether it's point increases and/or other tweaks. Whether or not you believe that Custodes and Tau should recieve big nerfs or only small adjustments, there is one thing most people can agree on: power creep in 9th edition is in full swing and it's not slowing down in any way shape or form judging by the multitude of Eldar leaks.

So let's pretend Custodes and Tau get nerfed tomorrow and GW does a competent job for once so these two factions are again in line with armies like Thousand Sons for example....decently strong, but not overpowered. Then the Eldar codex comes along and likely dominates the tournament scene for a few weeks as the new hotness before getting nerfed. Then the Tyranid codex comes along.....you see where this is going.
My point is, even if you were to nerf these new codices in a timely fashion should the need arise because the data suggests that action needs to be taken (which realistically won't happen anyway because GW takes a lot of time with these things) how does that help the older 9th ed factions who are already struggling? Maybe it's time to carefully undo some of the nerfs to Death Guard, Sisters and Space Marines for example in addition to adjusting the new codices?

In theory that is the idea behind the quarterly balance adjustments. though in practice the biggest one will obviously be the paid for chapter approved books. Nerf the things that are too good, buff the things that are too weak and make the game better. admitadly they are better at just incrementally nerfing armies and not very good about making bad units much better.

I have said it before and will say again, there is no way to playest at any real scale without having bias in there, the only real way we will get balance is doing some kind of algorithm from an app that is used to log the game This could be as simple as list input then win/loss reporting. Obviously the more granular the data the better like which unit scored points or even wound tracking for squads with which unit did the wounds, but that is asking a lot of users to track. Alas i find it unlikely for GW to actually implement something like this though

Answer to broken good shouldn't be further power creep. That just escalates thing and is what gw does. Power creep

just nerf the whole edition tbh. It's much less enjoyable power-level wise than 8th

Yeah, some of the Marine rules just don't even stack up anymore, and the fact that they weren't addressed properly with point adjustments (servo turret, hammerfall bunker, lol) just makes it more glaring.

GWs conscious design effort of power creep until edition reset is getting old and tiring. May be time for me to take a break if tenth comes rolling around.

tneva82 wrote:
Answer to broken good shouldn't be further power creep. That just escalates thing and is what gw does. Power creep

Just to avoid misunderstandings, my point was not to just simply leave everything as it is and buff older 9th Ed codices, but rather to adjust books like custodes and tau a bit in addition to undoing some nerfs to older codices.

The game would be better off if everyone was at DG level rather then putting the balance point at like Thousand Sons.

 Ordana wrote:
The game would be better off if everyone was at DG level rather then putting the balance point at like Thousand Sons.

???

I don't think TS are very far from DG. What differentiates them to you?

I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

ccs wrote:
I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

That's what GW's been doing for the past fifteen years. It's led to game size bloat, game scale bloat, stat bloat, rate of fire bloat, special rule bloat, the repeated introduction of new mechanics to get around the old mechanics they've rendered irrelevant via power creep, and a continuous churn of rendering old models irrelevant by releasing new overpowered models rather than fixing any old models. It's not particularly fun to participate in simply because not very many people have the broken gak at the same time as each other, which means the end result is that we live in a cycle where sometimes player A wins because they bought better models, and sometimes player B wins because they bought better models, and if you're not continuously buying new things you get to be stomped as punishment and given sad lectures about how if you just bought better models you'd be fine.

There are games that operate this way, where everyone's got their own flavor of powerful stuff and the game comes out of setting up how they interact with each other (30k, Infinity, that kind of thing), but the key difference between them and 40k is that they make an effort to make sure everyone can all participate at the same time rather than constructing a dysfunctional update schedule that ensures that only a few people get to have fun at any given point in time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

That's what GW's been doing for the past fifteen years.

I mean here in the present, with 9e books. Maybe, just maybe.... All this {supposedly} broken gak was meant to be played together.
Obviously the release schedule, especially being fouled up thanks to a pandemic, complicates that.
But everyone's instant overreaction as soon as anything is released resulting in nerfs before the next thing arrives isn't actually helping.
Instead of fighting the new gak with your own gak? Your just fighting the new gak

ccs wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

That's what GW's been doing for the past fifteen years.

I mean here in the present, with 9e books. Maybe, just maybe.... All this {supposedly} broken gak was meant to be played together.
Obviously the release schedule, especially being fouled up thanks to a pandemic, complicates that.
But everyone's instant overreaction as soon as anything is released resulting in nerfs before the next thing arrives isn't actually helping.
Instead of fighting the new gak with your own gak? Your just fighting the new gak

Eh. I don't think the pandemic disruptions have hit GW as hard as you seem to think, everything seems to be going exactly according to their usual playbook. Release undertested book, panic-nerf the things the community gets angry at, rinse, repeat. We're probably going to get 10th edition this summer right on schedule, with a big new Primaris v. someone starter box and everything.

ccs wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

That's what GW's been doing for the past fifteen years.

I mean here in the present, with 9e books. Maybe, just maybe.... All this {supposedly} broken gak was meant to be played together.
Obviously the release schedule, especially being fouled up thanks to a pandemic, complicates that.
But everyone's instant overreaction as soon as anything is released resulting in nerfs before the next thing arrives isn't actually helping.
Instead of fighting the new gak with your own gak? Your just fighting the new gak

Supposedly broken? Seriously? The win rates for Tau and Custodes are ridiculous right now. I don't think there's any real dispute that they're too good.

The problem with this approach of "make everything broken so nothing is broken" is twofold. Firstly, there are plenty of already released books that are way below the current power level, so you're basically telling anyone playing those armies that they're just permanently useless. Secondly, constantly ramping up the power level leads to games that are just boring for many people. Having armies getting tabled in a couple of turns and autopilot-style gameplay because you're just abusing the really powerful crap as much as possible in the most brainless way possible is not an engaging game.

Maybe it is all meant to be played together.

We could combine un-nerfed Dark Eldar good stuff with Ork Buggy+Flyer spam with Ad Mech flyer spam with Custodes ludicrous stratagems and Tau's comically overtuned shooting and idk, Eradicators and DG terminators could be a few points cheaper?

Maybe there's a balanced scenario out there where every army can reliably table every other army by the top of turn 3 - but I'm not sure its a fun one.

That sounds suspiciously similar to MtG combo winter to me...

I feel like this thread is going to derail before it even properly started.

To clarify again, the proposition was not to create a free for all scenario and just undo all nerfs without consideration....but rather to tune down new books like custodes and tau a bit, while simultaneously maybe lifting some of the nerfs imposed on struggling factions like Marines, sisters and death guard for example.

Undoing the nerfs would probably help a small amount but I feel like, for many armies, even that wouldn't be enough. The difference in power level between SM and Tau or Custodes is so great I think you wouldn't change anything in practical terms. That would obviously depend on what nerfs were applied to the two powerhouse armies but it seems like Eldar might just take over as the next broken thing in a few weeks anyway.

At this point I think it'd take a fundamental shift in design direction to salvage any semblance of balance. We'd need to see a general reset in power level for all factions but we won't get that for a long time.

Tiberias wrote:

To clarify again, the proposition was not to create a free for all scenario

I feel like just making everything OP and letting players have at it would probably be the best way to design 40k currently. No more nerfing, only buffing. Really lean into the over-the-topness 40k is known for.

ccs wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

That's what GW's been doing for the past fifteen years.

I mean here in the present, with 9e books. Maybe, just maybe.... All this {supposedly} broken gak was meant to be played together.
Obviously the release schedule, especially being fouled up thanks to a pandemic, complicates that.
But everyone's instant overreaction as soon as anything is released resulting in nerfs before the next thing arrives isn't actually helping.
Instead of fighting the new gak with your own gak? Your just fighting the new gak

Eh not that many armies have books wait...What is marines going to do vs this new gak? Necrons? Sisters? The power creep has left many armies behind and they don't have new book coming to give you your own gak to fight the new gak.

Those nerfs were imposed to get those factions down to the level of other factions which haven't been nerfed at all.
Some were also made for internal balance reasons because one unit/build was pushing all others out.

While there are definitely some nerfs that should be undone - especially some of those from last CA - it wouldn't solve the problem at all and most likely make the game worse.

There also is the issue that the game simply stops being fun when a certain level of "OPness" is reached and it just boils down to rock/paper/scissors or a coinflip.

 Jidmah wrote:
Those nerfs were imposed to get those factions down to the level of other factions which haven't been nerfed at all.
Some were also made for internal balance reasons because one unit/build was pushing all others out.

While there are definitely some nerfs that should be undone - especially some of those from last CA - it wouldn't solve the problem at all and most likely make the game worse.

There also is the issue that the game simply stops being fun when a certain level of "OPness" is reached and it just boils down to rock/paper/scissors or a coinflip.

How would it make the game even worse? That proposition seems illogical to me.

-We have factions that are currently too strong. These need some adjusting...I don't think anyone is going to argue that, the only point of contention might be the extent of adjustments.

-We have factions who had some arguably unjust nerfs when considering the current data.

-We have factions who are struggling without having been nerfed as much or at all.

If these bullet points are true then how is adjusting the overtly strong factions (custodes, tau), undoing some of the nerfs on struggling factions (deathguard, sisters) and also buffing the factions who were struggling without nerfs, going to make the game even worse?

Giving CORE to a lot of datasheets that should have had that keyword from the begginning in the example of Necrons proved that new life can be breathed into a faction. And while I believe Necrons still need some point drops on their HQs for example I think it shows that it's possible to adequatly boost a faction. GW just has to do it, but the second balance dataslate showed that they don't really have concrete plan on how to do this, hence why I brought this topic up. They just musn't be reluctant to undo some of the nerfs they imposed should the need arise...and I'm not sure they are very open to that idea.

I don't think just "undoing the nerfs" for older books while applying some nerfs to the newer ones would be enough. The power disparity isn't always just a case of "nerfed" older units vs "un-nerfed" newer units. A lot of the newer units are just flat better or cheaper than even the un-nerfed older units. A lot of older units need straight buffs to keep up, even if they've never received a nerf in the first place.

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Those nerfs were imposed to get those factions down to the level of other factions which haven't been nerfed at all.
Some were also made for internal balance reasons because one unit/build was pushing all others out.

While there are definitely some nerfs that should be undone - especially some of those from last CA - it wouldn't solve the problem at all and most likely make the game worse.

There also is the issue that the game simply stops being fun when a certain level of "OPness" is reached and it just boils down to rock/paper/scissors or a coinflip.

How would it make the game even worse? That proposition seems illogical to me.

-We have factions that are currently too strong. These need some adjusting...I don't think anyone is going to argue that, the only point of contention might be the extent of adjustments.

-We have factions who had some arguably unjust nerfs when considering the current data.

-We have factions who are struggling without having been nerfed as much or at all.

If these bullet points are true then how is adjusting the overtly strong factions (custodes, tau), undoing some of the nerfs on struggling factions (deathguard, sisters) and also buffing the factions who were struggling without nerfs, going to make the game even worse?

Giving CORE to a lot of datasheets that should have had that keyword from the begginning in the example of Necrons proved that new life can be breathed into a faction. And while I believe Necrons still need some point drops on their HQs for example I think it shows that it's possible to adequatly boost a faction. GW just has to do it, but the second balance dataslate showed that they don't really have concrete plan on how to do this, hence why I brought this topic up. They just musn't be reluctant to undo some of the nerfs they imposed should the need arise...and I'm not sure they are very open to that idea.

Because underneath the problems of the latest OP and the general balance of factions is the notion that the game has been to lethal for the latter part of 8th and entirety of 9th.

You're basically asking for measures to stop power creep inside of one edition. Good question.
The answer lies in codex design at a higher level such that codices get comparable at this level.

 Ordana wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Those nerfs were imposed to get those factions down to the level of other factions which haven't been nerfed at all.
Some were also made for internal balance reasons because one unit/build was pushing all others out.

While there are definitely some nerfs that should be undone - especially some of those from last CA - it wouldn't solve the problem at all and most likely make the game worse.

There also is the issue that the game simply stops being fun when a certain level of "OPness" is reached and it just boils down to rock/paper/scissors or a coinflip.

How would it make the game even worse? That proposition seems illogical to me.

-We have factions that are currently too strong. These need some adjusting...I don't think anyone is going to argue that, the only point of contention might be the extent of adjustments.

-We have factions who had some arguably unjust nerfs when considering the current data.

-We have factions who are struggling without having been nerfed as much or at all.

If these bullet points are true then how is adjusting the overtly strong factions (custodes, tau), undoing some of the nerfs on struggling factions (deathguard, sisters) and also buffing the factions who were struggling without nerfs, going to make the game even worse?

Giving CORE to a lot of datasheets that should have had that keyword from the begginning in the example of Necrons proved that new life can be breathed into a faction. And while I believe Necrons still need some point drops on their HQs for example I think it shows that it's possible to adequatly boost a faction. GW just has to do it, but the second balance dataslate showed that they don't really have concrete plan on how to do this, hence why I brought this topic up. They just musn't be reluctant to undo some of the nerfs they imposed should the need arise...and I'm not sure they are very open to that idea.

Because underneath the problems of the latest OP and the general balance of factions is the notion that the game has been to lethal for the latter part of 8th and entirety of 9th.

Well, sure....9th is too lethal. GW gave out AP and high dmg like candy, then they gave out invulns like candy, now ignore invuln rules seem to become somewhat of a banality. This is a very bad design philosophy in the long term and I've said that on multiple occasions, but what can be done realistically? They won't redesign anything for 9th so the only options left as far as I can see is to either stop playing 40k until 10th comes along or try to fix things with balance updates that also take older 9th ed codices into account in form of buffs.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:
I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if nobody was nerfed.
If I have broken gak, and you have your own different broken gak, and that guys got some 3rd type of broken, and "OMG! Did you see what Joe's _____ can do??"....

That's what GW's been doing for the past fifteen years.

I mean here in the present, with 9e books. Maybe, just maybe.... All this {supposedly} broken gak was meant to be played together.
Obviously the release schedule, especially being fouled up thanks to a pandemic, complicates that.
But everyone's instant overreaction as soon as anything is released resulting in nerfs before the next thing arrives isn't actually helping.
Instead of fighting the new gak with your own gak? Your just fighting the new gak

Eh not that many armies have books wait...What is marines going to do vs this new gak? Necrons? Sisters? The power creep has left many armies behind and they don't have new book coming to give you your own gak to fight the new gak.

marines don't have to worry, they'll get a second 9th codex right before 10th hits. Gotta get more money from those marine players.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
The game would be better off if everyone was at DG level rather then putting the balance point at like Thousand Sons.

???

I don't think TS are very far from DG. What differentiates them to you?

they probably play DG and think TS a OP because they counter them so hard

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Those nerfs were imposed to get those factions down to the level of other factions which haven't been nerfed at all.
Some were also made for internal balance reasons because one unit/build was pushing all others out.

While there are definitely some nerfs that should be undone - especially some of those from last CA - it wouldn't solve the problem at all and most likely make the game worse.

There also is the issue that the game simply stops being fun when a certain level of "OPness" is reached and it just boils down to rock/paper/scissors or a coinflip.

How would it make the game even worse? That proposition seems illogical to me.

-We have factions that are currently too strong. These need some adjusting...I don't think anyone is going to argue that, the only point of contention might be the extent of adjustments.

-We have factions who had some arguably unjust nerfs when considering the current data.

-We have factions who are struggling without having been nerfed as much or at all.

If these bullet points are true then how is adjusting the overtly strong factions (custodes, tau), undoing some of the nerfs on struggling factions (deathguard, sisters) and also buffing the factions who were struggling without nerfs, going to make the game even worse?

Giving CORE to a lot of datasheets that should have had that keyword from the begginning in the example of Necrons proved that new life can be breathed into a faction. And while I believe Necrons still need some point drops on their HQs for example I think it shows that it's possible to adequatly boost a faction. GW just has to do it, but the second balance dataslate showed that they don't really have concrete plan on how to do this, hence why I brought this topic up. They just musn't be reluctant to undo some of the nerfs they imposed should the need arise...and I'm not sure they are very open to that idea.

You moved the goalpost past quite an important landmark there. Before you were talking only about undoing nerfs on struggling factions, which would also include the nerfs to reign in ork fliers and buggy lists or the nerfs which clamped down on admech troops shooting, planes and some other things. Undoing those would absolutely make the game worse.

Your original suggestion would only have served to solve the second issue from your list, which would have helped sisters and DG, but then again maybe wouldn't help at all because despite not being nerfed those wouldn't really stand a chance against un-nerfed orks or admech.

Just for clarity - I disagree that just undoing nerfs would fix anything.
I think with your last post you are asking for a full scale fix that is addressing all three issues and includes re-evaluating previous nerfs in that process. To that I can absolutely agree.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Those nerfs were imposed to get those factions down to the level of other factions which haven't been nerfed at all.
Some were also made for internal balance reasons because one unit/build was pushing all others out.

While there are definitely some nerfs that should be undone - especially some of those from last CA - it wouldn't solve the problem at all and most likely make the game worse.

There also is the issue that the game simply stops being fun when a certain level of "OPness" is reached and it just boils down to rock/paper/scissors or a coinflip.

How would it make the game even worse? That proposition seems illogical to me.

-We have factions that are currently too strong. These need some adjusting...I don't think anyone is going to argue that, the only point of contention might be the extent of adjustments.

-We have factions who had some arguably unjust nerfs when considering the current data.

-We have factions who are struggling without having been nerfed as much or at all.

If these bullet points are true then how is adjusting the overtly strong factions (custodes, tau), undoing some of the nerfs on struggling factions (deathguard, sisters) and also buffing the factions who were struggling without nerfs, going to make the game even worse?

Giving CORE to a lot of datasheets that should have had that keyword from the begginning in the example of Necrons proved that new life can be breathed into a faction. And while I believe Necrons still need some point drops on their HQs for example I think it shows that it's possible to adequatly boost a faction. GW just has to do it, but the second balance dataslate showed that they don't really have concrete plan on how to do this, hence why I brought this topic up. They just musn't be reluctant to undo some of the nerfs they imposed should the need arise...and I'm not sure they are very open to that idea.

You moved the goalpost past quite an important landmark there. Before you were talking only about undoing nerfs on struggling factions, which would also include the nerfs to reign in ork fliers and buggy lists or the nerfs which clamped down on admech troops shooting, planes and some other things. Undoing those would absolutely make the game worse.

Your original suggestion would only have served to solve the second issue from your list, which would have helped sisters and DG, but then again maybe wouldn't help at all because despite not being nerfed those wouldn't really stand a chance against un-nerfed orks or admech.

Just for clarity - I disagree that just undoing nerfs would fix anything.
I think with your last post you are asking for a full scale fix that is addressing all three issues and includes re-evaluating previous nerfs in that process. To that I can absolutely agree.

Fair enough, I should have phrased the proposition more precisely from the beginning and also include buffing factions who have not received nerfs.

The question is then why does GW not do that? It is not very difficult to come to this conclusion and even if they playtested all books before releasing them (if they did it at all) and there was some semblance of balance there, they must have realized that it won't work if they don't release all books at the same.

OR this is all on purpose, because apparently there is no such thing as bad publicity....imbalance creates strong reactions, creates discussion and player engagement...idk, it just seems so inefficient and full of wasted potential.

I think the reason is simply that GW doesn't care. They know that balance isn't what sells 40k.
More, newer, cooler, models and rules sells 40k.
So they spend the absolute bare minimum on balance, and focus their effort on cooler rules.

This is what creates the march of powercreep. GW needs every rule to be cooler than the last.
They clearly don't care about "better" rules because semi-regularly you get new units being trash and outshon by old units, still for an overall super OP codex.