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.
harlokin wrote: I really don't get all the hopping on the Drukhari bandwagon. Rules are great right now (and will likely get gutted in a GW overreaction), but who the feth cares, are the rules that much of a motivating factor for people?
Tons of longtime Comp players still have drukhari armies from back in fifth I guess.
I have a darklight spam list since 5th ed, that's well suited for 9th.
harlokin wrote: I really don't get all the hopping on the Drukhari bandwagon. Rules are great right now (and will likely get gutted in a GW overreaction), but who the feth cares, are the rules that much of a motivating factor for people?
Tons of longtime Comp players still have drukhari armies from back in fifth I guess.
I have a darklight spam list since 5th ed, that's well suited for 9th.
I think my brother has one in storage from 3rd edition, lol.
harlokin wrote: I really don't get all the hopping on the Drukhari bandwagon. Rules are great right now (and will likely get gutted in a GW overreaction), but who the feth cares, are the rules that much of a motivating factor for people?
Yes, some people just want to win, other people just don't want to lose.
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Consolidation of Marine profiles just needs to happen, full stop. No I don't care if Manlet Marines had the same stats as Chad Marines, I want a smaller, cleaner Codex. We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Yea that's a weird one. It isn't like people were going to take 4+ predators.
That's probably more of a move by GW to soft-move away from Rule of 3 for non-problematic data sheets than anything else. At least that's what I think was the rationale behind it. Silly either way.
harlokin wrote: I really don't get all the hopping on the Drukhari bandwagon. Rules are great right now (and will likely get gutted in a GW overreaction), but who the feth cares, are the rules that much of a motivating factor for people?
Yes, some people just want to win, other people just don't want to lose.
Google has 500 million search results on trying to win vs trying not to lose but I'm sure the distinction isn't worth noting, stay ignorant internet-dude.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/12 03:46:09
That's probably more of a move by GW to soft-move away from Rule of 3 for non-problematic data sheets than anything else. At least that's what I think was the rationale behind it. Silly either way.
Fair point. I could see that. I think with my tournament brain too much.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Yea that's a weird one. It isn't like people were going to take 4+ predators.
That's probably more of a move by GW to soft-move away from Rule of 3 for non-problematic data sheets than anything else. At least that's what I think was the rationale behind it. Silly either way.
For only one unit though? It's goofy.
Anyone want to take bets as to whether the Chaos Predator will be split as well?
TTT did a review of the codex recently on their youtube, where Lawrence stated when they were play testing the codex that the Dark Lance was still D6 at the time... I also got the impression the suggestion they provided to change this - which would then apply to lascannons and other similar weapons was to make them 2D3 rolls for damage.
I got the impression that a fair few changes to provide a but more oomph were made since playtesting also.
I think this shows that whilst play testing in the community by GW is a good thing, the protocol is still flawed. They need to do multiple bouts of testing after significant changes are made, or at least inform the play testers so they can provide further feedback/troubleshoot.
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog
endlesswaltz123 wrote: TTT did a review of the codex recently on their youtube, where Lawrence stated when they were play testing the codex that the Dark Lance was still D6 at the time... I also got the impression the suggestion they provided to change this - which would then apply to lascannons and other similar weapons was to make them 2D3 rolls for damage.
I got the impression that a fair few changes to provide a but more oomph were made since playtesting also.
I think this shows that whilst play testing in the community by GW is a good thing, the protocol is still flawed. They need to do multiple bouts of testing after significant changes are made, or at least inform the play testers so they can provide further feedback/troubleshoot.
Or it could also represent that they had multiple people playtesting different things at different times.
TTT: Dark Lances are too weak! Here's the fix we suggest.
GW: Ok, let's write some variations to see what works. Sends updated profiles to a different group of playtesters to get differing opinions.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: TTT did a review of the codex recently on their youtube, where Lawrence stated when they were play testing the codex that the Dark Lance was still D6 at the time... I also got the impression the suggestion they provided to change this - which would then apply to lascannons and other similar weapons was to make them 2D3 rolls for damage.
I got the impression that a fair few changes to provide a but more oomph were made since playtesting also.
I think this shows that whilst play testing in the community by GW is a good thing, the protocol is still flawed. They need to do multiple bouts of testing after significant changes are made, or at least inform the play testers so they can provide further feedback/troubleshoot.
Or it could also represent that they had multiple people playtesting different things at different times. TTT: Dark Lances are too weak! Here's the fix we suggest. GW: Ok, let's write some variations to see what works. Sends updated profiles to a different group of playtesters to get differing opinions.
It really cannot be that hard to set up a functional playtesting and balancing system.
*Collect problems about the faction and set goals for the rules you will write (fix problems #1, 3 and 7). This should be done all the time for every faction, this is not something you start doing 1 month before a set of rules gets sent to the printers.
*Make outline of required rules (# of relics, WL traits, Stratagems, etc. needed).
*Write a slightly oversized pool of rules, if any alternatives for any of the rules come at you then note them down.
*Post the rules so that playtesters and game designers can see them to make sure nothing silly gets sent to playtesting (Ironstone from a competitive standpoint or Iyanden from a narrative standpoint).
*Get the narrative playtesters to provide feedback on how fun and thematic the rules that did not get cut so far are. Change rules that proved unfun or unthematic in narrative playtesting.
*Get the competitive playtesters to do stress tests by spamming different units and playtest every rule according to RAW ensuring no overpowered or badly written rules and points get published. Collect all the playtests and in a Facebook group and keep tabs on what has and has not been tested, write down how much each unit, relic and Stratagem did in the game.
*At least proofread the points costs.
Why did Word Bearers not get fixed in the second CSM dex? Did nobody have the balls to say that their chapter tactic is gak? Was it so thematic that the designers and playtesters thought "well this is gak but Word Bearers CT are just the most thematic and fun rules we've ever written so we won't change them"? Why did the rules for dark lances get buffed after the competitive playtesters provided feedback? You cannot possibly hope to get a comprehensive test without linking the different playtest teams and doing a systematic review, otherwise, you'll just be firing shotgun blasts in the dark hoping to hit mosquitoes and then five people have each fired a shotgun blast you open up the window to let more mosquitoes in.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/12 07:20:59
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Consolidation of Marine profiles just needs to happen, full stop. No I don't care if Manlet Marines had the same stats as Chad Marines, I want a smaller, cleaner Codex. We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Nah, first thing that needs to happen is that we consolidate the accounts of the consolidationists on here so they all have to share an account. I'm sure they won't find that annoying at all...
And, please, cite your example of datasheets within the SM codex where the only difference is sponson options.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Consolidation of Marine profiles just needs to happen, full stop. No I don't care if Manlet Marines had the same stats as Chad Marines, I want a smaller, cleaner Codex. We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Nah, first thing that needs to happen is that we consolidate the accounts of the consolidationists on here so they all have to share an account. I'm sure they won't find that annoying at all...
And, please, cite your example of datasheets within the SM codex where the only difference is sponson options.
While his complain given is technically not quite correct, there are a lot of datasheets that would have been just a long list of wargear in older editions that you could mix & match.
The list of Captain entries for example...
Captain
Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain in Phobos Armour
Captain in Terminator Armour
Captain on Bike
Captain with Master-crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle
Primaris Captain
harlokin wrote: The DL was caught up in GW's addressing of a common complaint (across many armies) that single shot D6 weapons were ineffective.
From a Drukhari perpective, pretty much nobody took DLs in 8th edition, and I can't say I'm unhappy that Dissies have taken more of a back seat.
The effectiveness of DL on Raiders was then ramped up by the stupid re-roll traits given to OR and BH Kabals.
I think the move - if its standardised - for D6 weapons to 3+D3 is evidently sensible. Its a much reduced swing. You can also argue it was always weird how a "multi" melta got one shot. The situation where cheap AP2/AP3 damage 2 shots was the best all-rounder in many factions probably needed to be fixed and doing so by points alone was difficult.
The problem A) these changes should all have come out at the same time rather than years apart and B) it should have come at the same time as a general boost in vehicle/monster wound totals.
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Consolidation of Marine profiles just needs to happen, full stop. No I don't care if Manlet Marines had the same stats as Chad Marines, I want a smaller, cleaner Codex. We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Given the Rule of Three this would be a terrible loss of potential sales for GW. They WANT to sell me 3x ______, 3x _______, 3x_______ ..... They would be fools to listen to people like you.
Naw, honestly it doesnt. Marines are fine. Half the armies in the fething game are playing jankass beta mode 9th ed.
Gsc Tau Eldar Guard Csm Tsons GK and Nids NEED codexes before they touch anything marine again.
Carve off the worst gak in drukhari and move the feth on, we know we've got three mostly unneccessary codexes to get thru before theres even a slight chance someone who actually needs one badly gets one.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
I think everyone knows that warhammer is not designed to be competitive game.
We have horizontal release schedule, older codexes just can`t keep up with new codexes extra rules and updated units statistics - more wounds, better guns etc....
To make the matters worse we have multiple rules for the some units, the biggest offender ofcourse are the space marines. They have so many chapters that supposed to have different playstyle, but in the end they are preferable shooting(IH, IF, UM...) or melee(BA, BK, WS...).
Space Marines have so many units and times more rules than other factions, so the designer are enforcing more restrictions to balance them, that create rage from SM players who don`t understand that they just have to much.
To make the mission pack unbalanced, instead of making bad secondaries useful, they introduced faction specific secondaries. Faction with easier to score secondary will have advantage, the reason DA are performing better and more consistent than other SM factions.
How faction that can just play super defensive and get easy 15pts for no reason, be on equal footing with the others who don`t have access to such thing and don`t have the kill power and speed to stop the scoring ?
To make the mater even worst we have rules that artificially enforce certain "fluffy" playstyle and rules that unlock others are taking little nerfs, so they are not so good and popular.
The nail of the coffin are the fluffy extra books with rules, that have the main goal is to increase the profits with creating on narrative environment.
How do you balance this ? You simple can`t and this is not video game, not everyone can switch to what is working and drop the things that are not optimal, so we have local mettas that certain things can overperform or underperform just because people use different things and play different.
Even the most tournaments are joke from competative standpoint, you trow bronze and gm players in one pod and wait to see the result. After that you calculate winrate, mix the results together from different tournaments(that could have environment) and hope they are not skew, so you can use the results to balance the game.
So we are not playing competitive game and wanting everything to be between 45-55% is not reasonable and will not happen soon.
Marin wrote: I think everyone knows that warhammer is not designed to be competitive game.
I actually disagree with this as GW has shown clear indication of wanting to monetize the interest in a competitive game environment much like many video games before and that the design team seems to be aiming for competitive play. The problem is that they kinda want to have the cake and eat it too as they don't want to abandon their narrative/casual gamers while still wanting the larger stage that competitive play gives them. Because the success in recent years is very much thanks to competitive play as it creates awareness and clout that results in increased sales. Add on that that they don't have a proper testing team to test their balance suggestions.
People need to keep in mind that a lot of video games didn't start off as competitive avenues, but grew over time to be ones. Warhammer is definitely on that road as competitive play is where the big money lies. At the moment it feels like they are stumbling like any other video game company in seeing how best to approach this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/12 09:37:51
Storm Speeders - entirely different weapon package for each variant - so not "just the sponsons"
Gladiators - entirely different weapon package for each variant - so not "just the sponsons"
Predators - different turret weapons for each, though with common sponson options
Land Speeders - I'll give you different secondary weapons, with a common primary, though I'd also include the basic Land Speeder here. Technically not sponsons, though
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Consolidation of Marine profiles just needs to happen, full stop. No I don't care if Manlet Marines had the same stats as Chad Marines, I want a smaller, cleaner Codex. We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Nah, first thing that needs to happen is that we consolidate the accounts of the consolidationists on here so they all have to share an account. I'm sure they won't find that annoying at all...
And, please, cite your example of datasheets within the SM codex where the only difference is sponson options.
While his complain given is technically not quite correct, there are a lot of datasheets that would have been just a long list of wargear in older editions that you could mix & match.
The list of Captain entries for example...
Captain
Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain in Phobos Armour
Captain in Terminator Armour
Captain on Bike
Captain with Master-crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle
Primaris Captain
I fully agree that there are datasheets that could easily be combined - Gravis and MC HBR being the prime example, where the latter just needs to be weapon swap for the former's Boltstorm Gauntlet. On the other hand, given the current framework, is it cleaner to have different datasheets for loadouts which introduce new special rules and/or keywords, to save confusion? Especially if you're trying to have as many special rules as possible covered on each datasheet, not in an Armory.
Having said that, the point I was making was that Slayer's hyperbole is a, inaccurate; and b, not helping the discussion.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of the DE Codex...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Yes, but then it would be easier to build those above avarge builds out of all of the books, and besides WS it is not really happening for them. There is no 60%+ win rate marine army.
Marin wrote: older codexes just can`t keep up with new codexes extra rules and updated units statistics - more wounds, better guns etc....
A large majority can and do.
Those that were initialy writen as good or which ended up good, because of core rules changes. there is also the whole GSC, IG, Knights, GK, Tau camp that is not doing so well since the very start of 9th, and each new book doesn't make the armies play better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/12 11:51:40
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Storm Speeders - entirely different weapon package for each variant - so not "just the sponsons"
Gladiators - entirely different weapon package for each variant - so not "just the sponsons"
Predators - different turret weapons for each, though with common sponson options
Land Speeders - I'll give you different secondary weapons, with a common primary, though I'd also include the basic Land Speeder here. Technically not sponsons, though
The design is very different comparing to the marine books where someone was doing a lot of copy paste stuff.
Couldn't be the fact that space marines have 5,782 choices for every conceivable unit role and at a certain point you just can't figure out a fething interesting datasheet for every single one, no sir.
Consolidation of Marine profiles just needs to happen, full stop. No I don't care if Manlet Marines had the same stats as Chad Marines, I want a smaller, cleaner Codex. We don't need separate entries for the same goddamn vehicle just because the Sponsons are fething different.
Nah, first thing that needs to happen is that we consolidate the accounts of the consolidationists on here so they all have to share an account. I'm sure they won't find that annoying at all...
And, please, cite your example of datasheets within the SM codex where the only difference is sponson options.
While his complain given is technically not quite correct, there are a lot of datasheets that would have been just a long list of wargear in older editions that you could mix & match.
The list of Captain entries for example...
Captain
Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain in Phobos Armour
Captain in Terminator Armour
Captain on Bike
Captain with Master-crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle
Primaris Captain
I fully agree that there are datasheets that could easily be combined - Gravis and MC HBR being the prime example, where the latter just needs to be weapon swap for the former's Boltstorm Gauntlet. On the other hand, given the current framework, is it cleaner to have different datasheets for loadouts which introduce new special rules and/or keywords, to save confusion? Especially if you're trying to have as many special rules as possible covered on each datasheet, not in an Armory.
Having said that, the point I was making was that Slayer's hyperbole is a, inaccurate; and b, not helping the discussion.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of the DE Codex...
Well meme'd milord, you verily have caught your opponent in a quite embarrassing logical fallacy *tips fedora*
How about this: You could cut the number of space marine datasheets by 33% by incorporating various "Different Units" into the same unit with a weapons swap and by eliminating firstborn units that are capable of being easily proxied as a Primaris option.
There's no reason an attack bike needs to have a separate unit entry now. Nor a SM bike squad. Nor Scouts, as they can be used as Infiltrators/Eliminators/Reivers, they've been fully replaced essentially.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
How do you balance this ? You simple can`t and this is not video game, not everyone can switch to what is working and drop the things that are not optimal, so we have local mettas that certain things can overperform or underperform just because people use different things and play different.
Even the most tournaments are joke from competative standpoint, you trow bronze and gm players in one pod and wait to see the result. After that you calculate winrate, mix the results together from different tournaments(that could have environment) and hope they are not skew, so you can use the results to balance the game.
So we are not playing competitive game and wanting everything to be between 45-55% is not reasonable and will not happen soon.
there is a difference between not all armie being at 50% win rate. And two or three armies being so way ahead of others that they are a tier of their own.
And by the way, if one excluded the harlequins and now the DE, 9th had a ton of armies sitting around the 45-55% win rate. And the bad armies were bad, because of either being bad in 8th or because they were based around 8th ed core rule sets that no longer exist. GW could fix those in a PDF, but then they would have to give it to some people for "free", because of piracy.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Eldar 
Imperial Guard 
Space Marines
