Switch Theme:

Drukhari are OP, what next?  [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
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Having my dudes run with 1 or 2 wounds each, at the points costs they have, with a +4 or +5 sv with all the multi shot and 2D weapons being thrown around, the game feels very deadly.
But this is just my army expiriance, I have no idea how playing something else feels.


Literally one unit in the Grey Knights codex has a 4+ armor save. That would be Servitors. Nothing has a 5+ save.

He was clearly referring to AP modifiers if you learned how to read for context clues. No gak nothing in the codex has a 5+ save, we're all aware.

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 nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Amishprn86 wrote:
ccs wrote:
Karol wrote:
Marin 797783 11123146 wrote:

Necrons have doomsctyhe and ghostark that are fast enough to get the angles and do alot of decent damage.
Is that point efficient ? Probably not, but they certainly can do that.
Also necrons have very interesting codex, Siegler almost beat that winning Dallas GT list with crons, playing some strange board army list. He could have probably have higher chance to win, if drukhari list was 100-200 pts more.
Led`s not fall to Karols level, who seem to think that you should be able to kill 6 raiders for one turn to have a chance to win the game.
Imagine thinking that empty transport is the most broken thing in the game, when playing factions with 100% WR vs new drukhari.


But if you don't kill at least 3 of the raiders or worse kill 1 or less, then on turn two you get slammed by the entire DE army and you can say the game goodbye on turn 2. Specially if you play a non horde army.

And the comment about the necron list possibly winning actually made my day. Because we have a joke about fly saying that, if it only had more training, it would reap its elephant enemy in half. The necron army lost, and the DE army cost what it costs right now.


That has to make more sense in the original Polish....


Karol wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:


You should have LoS to 1-2 raiders no matter what, if you do not then your tables terrain is bad.

The DE and all players for that matter should not be able to hide 90%+ of their army, you should have to make a choice. DO I want to hide my Raiders but leave out my Court/Hellions or leave out 2 raiders to hide my Court? I can not understand the tables some of you must be playing on to fully hide 6 raiders for 2 turns.

Also, all armies can kill a raider or two a turn, now did you take a TAC list, well thats up to your list but no army literally can't.



And I don't understand how you could be playing on different tables. Although that does maybe explain why some people think that marine shoting is too good. Without LoS blocking terrain they probably blast other armies while camping objectives.


We play on all sorts of tables. A lot of the time we alternate setting up x amount of stuff. Or random amounts of stuff. Sometimes though it's a themed table, so whatever makes sense for the theme.
But if you do manage to build a LoS blocking wall? You'd better hope you win the roll to pick your side.


A lot of the tables i'm seeing are like this, huge LoS blocking terrain and not much else, that DG player went into a losing match b.c of that terrain, even if it was Marines with 30 Vanguard vets (the top SM player there had that) he still would had no chance b.c its like 20" on all sides of Obscuring with even more behind that.
Considering that table picture showed up before and was widely ridiculed, No that is not what most people consider a good table setup.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:

So let me get this straight, because there is a theoretical possibility that somewhere in the world someone plays a bad build succubus with an army with no raiders, no DT wrecks or with wrecks but without liquifires, no drazh etc the DE stuff should not be changed?

also if the succubus is out of the she is in melee killing stuff, then here unit of bodyguard witchs has to be kill, which is not super hard, because of how aggresivly they are costed for what both of those units can do, the return is easy. Before that she is sitting in one of the 6 raiders, and it is a RR if the raider you somehow got LoS to is actually carrying her and her bodyguard of witchs. Ah and if they happen to be on an objective you have to kill all 3, which is suprisingly not easy for a supposed glass type of unit thanks to the raider being rather resilient with an inv save, higher toughness and multiple wounds.


No that's not what I'm saying. There's a multi-factor equation that makes succubi as good as they are - it doesn't come down to just the solitary model.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:


No that's not what I'm saying. There's a multi-factor equation that makes succubi as good as they are - it doesn't come down to just the solitary model.

It is not a multi factor question, when one or multiple options are spamed all across the globe. To be honest though, if succubi could be run in multiple ways, with all of them being broken, it would be worse.

Plus one has to remember how GW fixs stuff. They have one way, which I don't wish for DEs, which is the salamander or Inari way of fixing things. Or we have the army X got hit by errata number 4 and is still the top army.

To fix how DE work, GW would have to change rules, point costs and probably core rules for terrain too. And I don't think they would all of those at the same time, specially when their playtesters present DE as working as intended. And if they do it is going to take them months, the same way it took them months or years to fix the clearly broken stuff in 8th ed.


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. 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 vict0988 wrote:

Why would playing in a simulator grant increased foreknowledge of what faction your opponent is bringing? I have experience playing both in real life and in a simulator and it strikes me that I knew down to 1-2 armies what people were bringing IRL and had no idea what I was playing in simulated games.

If you want to prove that BA losing against Drukhari is list dependent then that is your hypothesis to prove. BA losing to Drukhari is a fact.


In a simulator both players can bring whatever they want, in real life there's the issue of models availability which might not be the same for two different factions. Drukhari for example work very well with casual collections as it's entirely possible to field competitive lists without spamming anything.

BA losing to drukhari may be a fact, but BA refusing to tailor against drukhari is also another fact. Lists are available online, we know what competitive players bring to tournaments. Funny thing is that it's widely accepted that tailoring against SM is ok, but when it comes to tailor against something else it's not.

I can argue that while BA losing vs drukhari may be true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the drukhari codex is better than the BA one, that's just your speculation, not a fact. Maybe drukhari players are simply more skilled than SM ones on average .

 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




ccs 797783 11123242 wrote:

That has to make more sense in the original Polish....




I think it does, it is based on the absurdity of the idea that any amount of training done by a fly could outweight , no pun intented, the weight difference between a fly an elephant. But as I said before, I am not good with jokes in the first place.

Am sure the english/US culture has something similar. Like 3ed grade dude saying that if the other guy was three heads smaller, blinded by the sun, then the fight would have gone totaly different.

The necron army lost, and whatifism of the , if only he had 200pts less, doesn't help us much, because we don't even know when or if GW decides to change the DE point costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:


In a simulator both players can bring whatever they want, in real life there's the issue of models availability which might not be the same for two different factions. Drukhari for example work very well with casual collections as it's entirely possible to field competitive lists without spamming anything.

BA losing to drukhari may be a fact, but BA refusing to tailor against drukhari is also another fact. Lists are available online, we know what competitive players bring to tournaments. Funny thing is that it's widely accepted that tailoring against SM is ok, but when it comes to tailor against something else it's not.

I can argue that while BA losing vs drukhari may be true, it doesn't necessarily mean that the drukhari codex is better than the BA one, that's just your speculation, not a fact. Maybe drukhari players are simply more skilled than SM ones on average .


I don't think anyone thinks that tailoring against their specific army is fun or okey. But with an army like BA it is just much easier to do, because tailoring against them automaticlly means the army tailors to some degree against other meq armies. And marines and meq armies make up the gross majority of play field, one can't really tailor heavy vs harlequins or DE, not if that means losing to armies like marines. If in a month DE super bad match up, becomes GSC, then it won't change much for the DE players, because GSC is and won't be wildly played.

Even at a non tournament level this is a thing. If your army is above avarge good vs marines, at the store you play, then you have 10-15 opponents to play against and you will win against them a lot easier. If at the same time your army has a bad match up vs some armies, then there is even a non zero chance that the army isn't played at your store.


And as the more skilled argument goes. Were the 2.0 IH players more skilled too, because their army had similar win rates too. And people tried to tailor vs them, but failed. Guess in 8th ed everyone who wasn't playing IH or 2.0 marines was unskilled, and only now with the advent of 9th ed we got a bunch of skilled players playing two armies with above avarge win rates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marin 797783 11123098 wrote:

Really show me one faction that can`t do that ?


In 9th? Sure. No faction other then DE crossed the 70% win rate. Harlis were close at one time at 68% win rate. Everything else, as I said placed themselfs in the middle. I understand that not everyone is interested in sports statistics, but everything above 60% win rate is considered a big problem. And over 75% win rate is considered either a proof of cheating or some unexpected circumstances . Like USSR and all the other communist countrise not sending their sports people to the olympics, which ment that countries like US blew up in number of medals won.

People wouldn't have problems with DE if they had a 60% rate. It would be considered normal power creep. DE are doing stuff not even IH were able to pull off under their 2.0 rule set. Even at their high days, they were not able to take practicaly all spots in the top 8 of any big tournament.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 12:07:54


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. 
   
Made in it
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





People wouldn't have problems with DE if they had a 60% rate. It would be considered normal power creep. DE are doing stuff not even IH were able to pull off under their 2.0 rule set. Even at their high days, they were not able to take practicaly all spots in the top 8 of any big tournament.

I have problems with any faction over 55% win rate. Power creep can never be considered "normal", otherwise we can just give up any pretence of balance.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:51:21



 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


No that's not what I'm saying. There's a multi-factor equation that makes succubi as good as they are - it doesn't come down to just the solitary model.

It is not a multi factor question, when one or multiple options are spamed all across the globe. To be honest though, if succubi could be run in multiple ways, with all of them being broken, it would be worse.

Plus one has to remember how GW fixs stuff. They have one way, which I don't wish for DEs, which is the salamander or Inari way of fixing things. Or we have the army X got hit by errata number 4 and is still the top army.

To fix how DE work, GW would have to change rules, point costs and probably core rules for terrain too. And I don't think they would all of those at the same time, specially when their playtesters present DE as working as intended. And if they do it is going to take them months, the same way it took them months or years to fix the clearly broken stuff in 8th ed.



*looks over at space marines sitting between 45-55% winrates from being the undisputed top army*

*looks over at Necrons sitting between 45-55% winrates from being the undisputed bottom army*

Really? GW only knows one way to balance things, overbuff or overnerf?

"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!"  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


No that's not what I'm saying. There's a multi-factor equation that makes succubi as good as they are - it doesn't come down to just the solitary model.

It is not a multi factor question, when one or multiple options are spamed all across the globe. To be honest though, if succubi could be run in multiple ways, with all of them being broken, it would be worse.


That's not true. The issue right now is there is one build for the Succubus that is clearly better than any other build, so that's what shows up in most tournament lists. That doesn't mean there aren't other broken builds for the Succubus but right now we don't really know because competitive lists are dominated by a single broken combo. If that combo was nerfed tomorrow we might see the Succubus remain just as popular and be almost as broken using a different combination of equipment and abilities.
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran




Karol wrote:
Marin 797783 11123146 wrote:

Necrons have doomsctyhe and ghostark that are fast enough to get the angles and do alot of decent damage.
Is that point efficient ? Probably not, but they certainly can do that.
Also necrons have very interesting codex, Siegler almost beat that winning Dallas GT list with crons, playing some strange board army list. He could have probably have higher chance to win, if drukhari list was 100-200 pts more.
Led`s not fall to Karols level, who seem to think that you should be able to kill 6 raiders for one turn to have a chance to win the game.
Imagine thinking that empty transport is the most broken thing in the game, when playing factions with 100% WR vs new drukhari.


But if you don't kill at least 3 of the raiders or worse kill 1 or less, then on turn two you get slammed by the entire DE army and you can say the game goodbye on turn 2. Specially if you play a non horde army.

And the comment about the necron list possibly winning actually made my day. Because we have a joke about fly saying that, if it only had more training, it would reap its elephant enemy in half. The necron army lost, and the DE army cost what it costs right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:


You should have LoS to 1-2 raiders no matter what, if you do not then your tables terrain is bad.

The DE and all players for that matter should not be able to hide 90%+ of their army, you should have to make a choice. DO I want to hide my Raiders but leave out my Court/Hellions or leave out 2 raiders to hide my Court? I can not understand the tables some of you must be playing on to fully hide 6 raiders for 2 turns.

Also, all armies can kill a raider or two a turn, now did you take a TAC list, well thats up to your list but no army literally can't.



And I don't understand how you could be playing on different tables. Although that does maybe explain why some people think that marine shoting is too good. Without LoS blocking terrain they probably blast other armies while camping objectives.


Even in WTC terrain you are unable to hide more than 4 raiders and that is without other units. In 8th people complained that there is not enough terrain and shooting armies delete you for 1 turn, now we complain there is to much terrain, since on one tournament they overdid it.
N.Nanavathi played SM player on the pizza terrain and he said that is auto win for him.
When the terrain is one of the way that GW include in the balance and it`s not done right, there will certainly be huge imbalances.

If your army is unable to kill reliably 1-3 raiders or equivalent vehicles per turn, than what are you even doing ?
If you don`t bring elephant gun, than as for you they as good as flying elephants, since you are not killing them.

Interesting fact is that the Romans had huge problems when they first faced elephants, but they developed strategies to fight.
I guess they did not had the ability to whine and just ask God to fix the problem

Also i`m really interested where are you reading the win rates, because certainly are looking in different places or are you just pulling numbers from your hat ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 13:20:36


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






If terrain was one of the ways GW included to balance, then why didn't they give rules/guidelines beyond "hey, put some like, stuff on your table. Make sure you have enough!" and then never define enough.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

You mean something like this?

In general, we recommend having one feature on the battlefield for every 12" by 12" area (rounding up). Don’t worry if your battlefield doesn’t match these requirements, but keep in mind that playing on a battlefield that is either a barren wasteland or filled to overflowing with terrain features may give an advantage to one side or the other.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Yea, 18 pieces. One problem could be the lack of diversity in that terrain. When everything is an obscuring ruin it becomes easy to hide.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






a_typical_hero wrote:
You mean something like this?

In general, we recommend having one feature on the battlefield for every 12" by 12" area (rounding up). Don’t worry if your battlefield doesn’t match these requirements, but keep in mind that playing on a battlefield that is either a barren wasteland or filled to overflowing with terrain features may give an advantage to one side or the other.

Yea, that's the bad thing that they shouldn't do.
"hey, put some like, stuff on your table. Make sure you have enough!" and then never define enough.


Putting a shipping container in every square foot of my table is valid under these guidelines. is it a good, balanced table? Absolutely not! I sure hope GW isn't balancing their game around some specific definition of terrain that they never give.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 14:07:21


I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

You asked for a guideline. One terrain feature per 12" by 12" area is a guideline.

I'm pretty sure they still have pictures of complete battlefields in the core rulebook as well to show what GW thinks how it should look like.

Edit: Looked it up, yes they do.

They have three Strike force and three Incursion sized examples and even describe the reasoning behind the setup. One is directly called out as being more suited to narrative, while others are suited for matched play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 14:15:11


   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






I asked for a guideline beyond "put some stuff on the table, figure it out".

If it was an integral part of the design of their balancing system I would expect pre-designed layouts a la Warcry for Grand Tournament missions. Not some extremely loose guidelines and a few example pictures.

They don't even mention what terrain rules each of their pieces have! They only show one weird angle!

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Rihgu wrote:
I asked for a guideline beyond "put some stuff on the table, figure it out".

If it was an integral part of the design of their balancing system I would expect pre-designed layouts a la Warcry for Grand Tournament missions. Not some extremely loose guidelines and a few example pictures.


They kind of can't. Lots of people are going to use whatever terrain they have on hand and much of that won't be GW specific.

They don't even mention what terrain rules each of their pieces have! They only show one weird angle!


Yes they do.

Spoiler:

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 14:28:19


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They kind of can't. Lots of people are going to use whatever terrain they have on hand and much of that won't be GW specific.

As evidenced in the picture that started this part of the discussion. Everybody is using what they have and what they think makes for an exciting game. TOs who need to provide several (dozens?) of tables don't want to, or simply can't create the same battlefield layout on every table. A set "official" layout for tournaments would be nice for you at home, where you can replicate it for you and your buddy. It would be largely ignored in actual tournaments due to the lack of terrain pieces at hand.

And again, there are exact layouts for matched play given in the rulebook.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 14:39:25


   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






So for this picture
Spoiler:




I guess the entire field is Ruins + Armoured Containers?

No dense, no heavy cover, everything is scaleable and the majority of it is obscuring.

Massive firing lanes all over the place. This is the type of table we should be playing on? This is what GW is balancing the game around?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 14:40:29


I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Blackie wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Why would playing in a simulator grant increased foreknowledge of what faction your opponent is bringing? I have experience playing both in real life and in a simulator and it strikes me that I knew down to 1-2 armies what people were bringing IRL and had no idea what I was playing in simulated games.

If you want to prove that BA losing against Drukhari is list dependent then that is your hypothesis to prove. BA losing to Drukhari is a fact.


In a simulator both players can bring whatever they want, in real life there's the issue of models availability which might not be the same for two different factions. Drukhari for example work very well with casual collections as it's entirely possible to field competitive lists without spamming anything.

BA losing to drukhari may be a fact, but BA refusing to tailor against drukhari is also another fact.

My point was that your scenario does not fit reality, because you are never going to know beforehand that you will be playing against Drukhari while building your list so BA will not get to build a counter list. It's more realistic to be a BA player in real life and know you'll be facing Drukhari and be able to build a counter list, but that's frowned upon in 90% of communities and once Drukhari stop worrying about the mirror match then they can build better anti-BA lists.

No, that is not a fact. You said yourself you would like to see the BA lists that are losing to Drukhari, which means you haven't, which means you don't know if the BA lists that lost are the best anti-Drukhari BA list that money can buy. It's an unverified claim that the BA lists are outdated and it's an unverified hypothesis that building an anti-Drukhari list will grant even a 40% win rate against Drukhari.
Rihgu wrote:
So for this picture
Spoiler:

https://i.imgur.com/J3b99XW.png



I guess the entire field is Ruins + Armoured Containers?

No dense, no heavy cover, everything is scaleable and the majority of it is obscuring.

Massive firing lanes all over the place. This is the type of table we should be playing on? This is what GW is balancing the game around?

What's wrong with it?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 14:41:07


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rihgu wrote:
So for this picture
Spoiler:




I guess the entire field is Ruins + Armoured Containers?

No dense, no heavy cover, everything is scaleable and the majority of it is obscuring.

Massive firing lanes all over the place. This is the type of table we should be playing on? This is what GW is balancing the game around?


I agree that's not a great table. Not terrible, but definitely lacking. This suffers from GW not producing a good range of different terrain types, IMO. I think other than giving guidance on how much terrain should be on a table GW should also give guidance on how many of each type (dense, obscuring, heavy etc) we should have.

The problem I have with that table is the non-interactive nature of the terrain. If you're not an infantry model it's basically all impassable LoS-blockers while still being set up in such a way to create massive firing lanes. Some genuinely impassable terrain and some dense or difficult ground would make the board much more interesting IMO.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rihgu wrote:
So for this picture
Spoiler:




I guess the entire field is Ruins + Armoured Containers?

No dense, no heavy cover, everything is scaleable and the majority of it is obscuring.

Massive firing lanes all over the place. This is the type of table we should be playing on? This is what GW is balancing the game around?


Plenty of dense and heavy cover if you define it as such.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






We're taking about GW's guidelines, though.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rihgu wrote:
We're taking about GW's guidelines, though.


Which are ... guidelines .... !

They explicitly tell you to switch it up. Treating those guidelines as rules written in stone is literally a violation of the rulebook, lol.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Then how can we expect that GW balances the game around the terrain setup?

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Rihgu wrote:
Then how can we expect that GW balances the game around the terrain setup?



40K by it's very nature is a sandbox style game. There are some rough guidelines. A minimum recommendation for the table. Etc.. but it's probably never going to be "balanced" to the same degree a more competitive-styled game like Underworlds with far fewer variables ever will be.


How is GW "balancing" the game both for playing 3000 points Maelstrom on round table with a 10' diameter with lots of forest that all have the heavy cover keyword vs. playing it at 1000 points GT mission on the "recommended minimum table size" with the terrain following precisely the recommendations in the book?

Short answer: they don't.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Sunny Side Up wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Then how can we expect that GW balances the game around the terrain setup?



40K by it's very nature is a sandbox style game. There are some rough guidelines. A minimum recommendation for the table. Etc.. but it's probably never going to be "balanced" to the same degree a more competitive-styled game like Underworlds with far fewer variables ever will be.


How is GW "balancing" the game both for playing 3000 points Maelstrom on round table with a 10' diameter with lots of forest that all have the heavy cover keyword vs. playing it at 1000 points GT mission on the "recommended minimum table size" with the terrain following precisely the recommendations in the book?

Short answer: they don't.


Well, if they gave actual rules about how to set up tables, then they wouldn't need to. They'd need to balance for GT2020/2021/etc Strike Force and Incursion games only, really. And then the majority of 40k players would do that or continue doing what they're already doing.

I think you missed the point that the catalyzing incident for this path of discussion was somebody claiming that Games Workshop balanced Drukhari around a specific terrain setup and that tournaments deviating from this terrain setup is obviously the source for imbalance.
I just want to point out that that's a ridiculous claim considering that Games Workshop doesn't even tell us that setup even assuming that this is the case in the first place.

I do not want to misconstrue my position here: I do not think GW uses terrain as a balancing factor when planning their armies. I am merely saying that if they did they should tell us what terrain to use. You know, to feel the effects of this balancing factor.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 Aenar wrote:
ccs 797783 11123242 wrote:People wouldn't have problems with DE if they had a 60% rate. It would be considered normal power creep. DE are doing stuff not even IH were able to pull off under their 2.0 rule set. Even at their high days, they were not able to take practicaly all spots in the top 8 of any big tournament.

I have problems with any faction over 55% win rate. Power creep can never be considered "normal", otherwise we can just give up any pretence of balance.


I believe you've misquoted me here.
Those are Karols words, not mine.

You can tell because I never reference tourney win %s etc - unless I'm deriding everyone's worship of the tournament scene
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






The same tournament scene that claims that balancing action must be taken to ensure that armies that dont bring heavy infantry skew lists must be made artificially weaker because lists that tailor to fight heavy infantry skew lists cant fight them?

Currently, mechanized lists make up a combined total of....what, 15% of the lists people are bringing? 20%? In their most dominant moment in the meta so far in 9th.

Meanwhile, heavy infantry skew has never dipped below 50% of the overall competitive player pool even for an instant.

Yep, definitely seems like that one army that brings a solid mech list is a real huge emergency problem! We gotta balance that NOW so we can get back tp what the game is supposed to be: >66% heavy infantry skew!

"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!"  
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

 the_scotsman wrote:
The same tournament scene that claims that balancing action must be taken to ensure that armies that dont bring heavy infantry skew lists must be made artificially weaker because lists that tailor to fight heavy infantry skew lists cant fight them?

Currently, mechanized lists make up a combined total of....what, 15% of the lists people are bringing? 20%? In their most dominant moment in the meta so far in 9th.

Meanwhile, heavy infantry skew has never dipped below 50% of the overall competitive player pool even for an instant.

Yep, definitely seems like that one army that brings a solid mech list is a real huge emergency problem! We gotta balance that NOW so we can get back tp what the game is supposed to be: >66% heavy infantry skew!

Given that people bringing heavy infantry lists make up a large percentage of the meta and that this space is occupied by the system's flagship faction you should probably make sure that power-armored factions function well at every point in an edition. The other factions, which collectively make up the rest of the games design space are all much more fragmented in terms of their core identity and statlines so they should never have that same level of spotlight on them lest a faction that has a <5% play rate makes the game less fun for 50% of an entire community. This is the issue with DE as things currently stand.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: