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 dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 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!

What is Eradicator whining if not clamour for the ability to bring more mechanised lists?
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Thats a good way to balance a game, yeah, absolutely. If a meta is overwhelmingly dominated by one thing, make sure anything that counters that gets stamped down immediately so that people playing the currently dominant strategy have the most fun possible.

Thats how they do it in sports too, right? Like how Americans complained that soccer games were too boring because people didnt score enough, so they made the field half as long and the goal twice as big to get that american Cashish.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 the_scotsman wrote:
Thats a good way to balance a game, yeah, absolutely. If a meta is overwhelmingly dominated by one thing, make sure anything that counters that gets stamped down immediately so that people playing the currently dominant strategy have the most fun possible.

Thats how they do it in sports too, right? Like how Americans complained that soccer games were too boring because people didnt score enough, so they made the field half as long and the goal twice as big to get that american Cashish.

Your argument got lost in the sarcasm. Are you saying that OP Eradicators are keeping Drukhari in check?
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





No, he's saying that Drukhari shouldn't be bad so that Space Marine players can feel good.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 vict0988 wrote:
 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!

What is Eradicator whining if not clamour for the ability to bring more mechanised lists?


When mechanized and heavy armor lists make up like 5% of the meta, given that roughly half of the units in the game are vehicles and monsters one might say their absence indicates some kind of problematic imbalance.

You could say the same thing about light infantry hordes....psykers....flyers...the fact that a tiny fraction of the meta that brings something off the wall and unexpected might do well is an indication that an unexpected strategy can beat a "solved" meta, not that the unexpected strategy needs to be immediately steamrolled.

This is what the crying that raiders must be brought in line with other transports that quite simply do not exist in the meta at all reads like to me. For all the "HAHA people said let the meta adjust 74% winrate lololololol" earlier I dont hear a lot of acknowledgement that it's been a couple of weeks and with zero rebalancing the winrate dropped 11-12%.

Where would that be if the obvious bs everyone agrees is obvious bs got cut out BEFORE we lay in with the "dark eldar players get 200 fewer points than they have now" nerfs?

Would we have a meta where people just bring some weapons that can deal with light vehicle skew lists and DE settle into a healthy win percentage?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 the_scotsman wrote:
Thats a good way to balance a game, yeah, absolutely. If a meta is overwhelmingly dominated by one thing, make sure anything that counters that gets stamped down immediately so that people playing the currently dominant strategy have the most fun possible.

Nobody is asking for DE to be 'stamped down' we're saying that a 70% win rate is a disaster that makes the entire tournament scene less fun for a lot of people and that nerfs are needed to correct this.

Thats how they do it in sports too, right? Like how Americans complained that soccer games were too boring because people didnt score enough, so they made the field half as long and the goal twice as big to get that american Cashish.

What people want is more like what F1 did to Mercedes' Dual-Axis Steering system. They said that it was legal but that it wouldn't be moving forward into the next season. This ban was done so that other teams weren't forced to develop yet another new part just to not lose pace next to the undisputed top team in the sport.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Marines should naturally have a lesser win-rates because they are the meta and everyone brings lists to counter them.

Meanwhile counter-meta factions like DE should naturally have higher win-rates because they run into fewer counters.

Of course, if DE becomes the meta army, then the situation reverses.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 16:22:42


 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Tyran wrote:
Marines should naturally have a lesser win-rates because they are the meta and everyone brings lists to counter them.

The most popular faction should be bad because of reasons argument. Why shouldn't we overtune Marines slightly to counteract the known anti-marine meta? The goal is a game that can be balanced at the tournament level and you can't do that if one faction gets the same power budget as others in spite of facing a hostile meta.

-----

As for claims about DE winrates falling let's see what people who analyze the stats for a living have to say about that:

Peter "The Falcon” Colosimo wrote:
Dark Technomancers Liquifiers

Since the Drukhari release there has been an awful lot of talk, here and elsewhere, about what if anything needs to be addressed in the codex to relieve some of the eye-watering numbers that their codex has been putting out over the last 6 weeks with a particular eye on targets like Cult of Strife and Dark Technomancers, the former for its access to incredible relics, combos and stratagems, the latter for its ability to delete elite units at effectively no cost due to how it interacts with the liquifier.

In tracking all of the competitive games that have occurred, it has been interesting to deep dive into exactly what is and isn’t working for Drukhari because, despite having that much ballyhoo’ed 70%+ win rate, there have indeed been lists that haven’t lived up to the hype. While at this point it has become common to see Drukhari in the top 4s of any GT+ event, there are still some Drukhari lists that fall below .500 and all of those sub-500 lists have had something in common.

Since the first events played out that allowed the use of the new codex on April 10th, there have been 56 players that have brought Drukhari out to play as their primary faction at GTs and Majors, playing a total of 324 recorded games. Of those 56 lists, 25 have run Dark Technomancers and not a single one of them has had a record worse than 3-2. In fact, lists that include Dark Technomancers are currently 119-24-1 in tournament play boasting an 83% win rate, 86.5% when you account for mirror matches. If you remove Dark Technomancer results from the current Drukhari win rate they go from a 70.2% win rate to 60.2% off of that change alone.

This isn’t all to say that a ‘fix’ for Dark Technomancers would be a total ‘fix’ for Drukhari; firstly because even a 60% win rate is well above a healthy number (though far more digestible than 70) and secondly because it does not account for those players currently running Dark Technomancers just moving to something else in this deep codex. What it does show is that this particular added ability is a bit of a problem, though perhaps a bit is in itself a bit of an understatement…

This essentially shows that DE do in fact have some builds that don't just crush the meta simply by showing up and that an influx of new players running 'bad' lists is responsible for lowering the average DE win percentage.

The full article is here: https://www.goonhammer.com/may-40k-meta-review-addendum-odds-and-ends/

It also breaks down DG, Necrons, SoB, and Tyranids by subfaction just as they've done for Marines. So people can finally stop whining about Marines being treated as special by the stats.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 16:31:39


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I would like for more transports to be made viable. I love me some mechanized infantry. But in many cases even if you like to do it, is hardly worth it.

In Tau for example, I love my breachers in devilfishes but I'm paying 90 points to have a 99 point squad inside. And thats less about points and more about lack of options of what to put inside those transports.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Galas wrote:
I would like for more transports to be made viable. I love me some mechanized infantry. But in many cases even if you like to do it, is hardly worth it.

In Tau for example, I love my breachers in devilfishes but I'm paying 90 points to have a 99 point squad inside. And thats less about points and more about lack of options of what to put inside those transports.

The issue that the Tau have with transports is that anytime your units are embarked they're doing nothing with the weapons they paid points for. Even in the case where you hold an objective if an enemy force can crack the transport with one unit they can almost always kill its contents with a melee unit in the same turn. This isn't the case with DE, Necrons, or Marines to nearly the same extent.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 the_scotsman wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 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!

What is Eradicator whining if not clamour for the ability to bring more mechanised lists?


When mechanized and heavy armor lists make up like 5% of the meta, given that roughly half of the units in the game are vehicles and monsters one might say their absence indicates some kind of problematic imbalance.

You could say the same thing about light infantry hordes....psykers....flyers...the fact that a tiny fraction of the meta that brings something off the wall and unexpected might do well is an indication that an unexpected strategy can beat a "solved" meta, not that the unexpected strategy needs to be immediately steamrolled.

This is what the crying that raiders must be brought in line with other transports that quite simply do not exist in the meta at all reads like to me. For all the "HAHA people said let the meta adjust 74% winrate lololololol" earlier I dont hear a lot of acknowledgement that it's been a couple of weeks and with zero rebalancing the winrate dropped 11-12%.

Where would that be if the obvious bs everyone agrees is obvious bs got cut out BEFORE we lay in with the "dark eldar players get 200 fewer points than they have now" nerfs?

Would we have a meta where people just bring some weapons that can deal with light vehicle skew lists and DE settle into a healthy win percentage?

What does nerfing Raiders to make Drukhari fair and nerfing Eradicators to open up the meta to more mechanised lists have to do with each other?

Your claim that nobody were complaining about unviable vehicles and the source of them being unviable (Eradicators) is just false. Eradicators were one of the most complained about units of all time.

I don't know how many more points Drukhari need to cost, but the more extreme cost increases do make some sense if GW decides to balance Drukhari purely through points, which is how the game should be balanced for the most part. Having to errata broken relics, Stratagems and WL traits should require an excuse not be a matter of course. GW decided not to nerf DT liquifier Wracks rules, which makes sense rules have been tested and if DT liquifier Wracks are the best Wracks or the only viable liquifier carriers then that's just how it is and liquifiers will have to cost 5 or 10 more points on Wracks.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Yes...and something like 50% to 75% of terrain on "competitive" tables is LOS blocking/ obscuring. It's kinda always been that way too. It was in fact the ITC organizers which are mainly responsible for 9th editions new objectives and terrain. This is why "casual" and "competitive" experience is normally much different.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The most popular faction should be bad because of reasons argument. Why shouldn't we overtune Marines slightly to counteract the known anti-marine meta? The goal is a game that can be balanced at the tournament level and you can't do that if one faction gets the same power budget as others in spite of facing a hostile meta.

Because you are basically demanding that Xenos factions have to be inherently weaker because they are not popular, and that sucks.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Tyran wrote:
Marines should naturally have a lesser win-rates because they are the meta and everyone brings lists to counter them.

Meanwhile counter-meta factions like DE should naturally have higher win-rates because they run into fewer counters.

Of course, if DE becomes the meta army, then the situation reverses.

Marines are meta just needs to die. Marines are always easy to kill because they don't have invulnerable saves. However - lots of units have armor saves you need to remove too or you can't kill them accross all armies minus a few...and they are a lot more threatening than marines...like custodian bikers or dreads - or pretty much any unit with a 2+ save. Marines are just weak because they don't have the invune...it doesn't make them "meta" to kill.

They in fact aren't meta by your description too. DG are -1 damage to flat 2 weapons are bad against them / bad against necrons/ sisters/ harliquens/ pretty much flat 2 is only effective against vaniala space marines. The majority of other armies that are top teir have invunes on all their models - which counters AP. There is no meta weapon. That is probably the intent of the rules. Here is what it does though. It forces everyone to take extreme weapons. It ether has extremely high shot count or gives you really high damage attacks.

This is why you don't see anyone bringing autocannon type weapons because they stand the highest chance of being worthless.

You do make a point though. What is available to attack in the field has a strong impact on what armies are viable. I think you just got it wrong. Marines suffer from being "underprotected" they don't suffer from being "meta".

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:14:23


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Tyran wrote:
[Because you are basically demanding that Xenos factions have to be inherently weaker because they are not popular, and that sucks.

That's the nature of the beast. Xeno factions don't have any underlying unified design the same way power armor does so if one of them is powerful it means that players of one specific faction are happy. If elite infantry is good CSM, Marines, Sisters, Necrons, Custodes, and DG are all likely to be in a decent spot and that makes a greater number of players happy. A game should focus on keeping the majority happy while giving minority factions a unique, but not overpowering niche.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Xenomancers wrote:

Marines are meta just needs to die.


Marines are meta because they are the most common faction, because if you play a random 40k game, there is an overwhelming chance you will play against a Marine army, it is only tangentially related with actual power.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
That's the nature of the beast. Xeno factions don't have any underlying unified design the same way power armor does so if one of them is powerful it means that players of one specific faction are happy. If elite infantry is good CSM, Marines, Sisters, Necrons, Custodes, and DG are all likely to be in a decent spot and that makes a greater number of players happy. A game should focus on keeping the majority happy while giving minority factions a unique, but not overpowering niche.


That is a terrible argument because most players are not competitive nor go to tournaments. Thus according to your logic, the biggest focus should be keeping the vast casual majority happy, and such majority plays in an entirely different environment.

Moreover you are not asking them to not have an "overpowering niche", but to be straight up weaker and hope their niche is enough to make up for the imbalance.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:13:32


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
. A game should focus on keeping the majority happy while giving minority factions a unique, but not overpowering niche.


Or maybe a game should focus on being balanced for all factions so everyone's happy? That sounds like a better idea.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Tyran wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Marines are meta just needs to die.


Marines are meta because they are the most common faction, because if you play a random 40k game, there is an overwhelming chance you will play against a Marine army, it is only tangentially related with actual power.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
That's the nature of the beast. Xeno factions don't have any underlying unified design the same way power armor does so if one of them is powerful it means that players of one specific faction are happy. If elite infantry is good CSM, Marines, Sisters, Necrons, Custodes, and DG are all likely to be in a decent spot and that makes a greater number of players happy. A game should focus on keeping the majority happy while giving minority factions a unique, but not overpowering niche.


That is a terrible argument because most players are not competitive nor go to tournaments. Thus according to your logic, the biggest focus should be keeping the vast casual majority happy, and such majority plays in an entirely different environment.

Moreover you are not asking them to not have an "overpowering niche", but to be straight up weaker and hope their niche is enough to make up for the imbalance.

You might be more likely to run into a marine army in a tournament but that means almost nothing. They could be spamming -1 damage dreads - they could be whitescars spamming BGV and VV and attack bikes. They could be DA spamming terminators...entirely different profiles and counters to each other these armies. The end result is the primaris marines archtype is one of the least common profiles. It is just a profile that gets wrecked by most weapons because flat 2 exists - AP is rampant and there are much bigger fish to fry that a space marine.

It has always been my opinion that keeping "casual" gamers happy - Leads to the best competitive setting. If the game is of good balance - all list archetypes are viable. Casuals love that...know who else loves that? Everyone else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:20:44


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Why are we arguing about this?

The game was in a pretty great state before Drukhari dropped (Outside us poor tau, AM, GSC and some other 8th armies). Marines were back at a 50% winrate and the best factions weren't marines or marines and equivalents, being sob and harlequins. All 9th books had a fair chance agaisnt each other, maybe necrons are a little left behind right now but nothing that can't change without points reductions.

Drukhari are the outlier. And lets hope they aren't the heralds of a new age of power. Nerfing drukhari is NOT being pro-marine biased. They trump all other armies just the same. No, the meta WAS not marine skewed when most armies had to take the tools to kill sisters of battle or harlequins or demon and orks hordes to win tournaments. But theres not amount of optimization you can do agaisnt drukhari to have a consistent fair game against them. Thats the truth.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:19:19


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

I'm not saying that Drukhari are not a problem, they are and need nerfs.

But they are also a niche faction and that means that in a tournament setting, asuming they get balanced, are still going to have better win-rate than the more common factions.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Galas wrote:
Why are we arguing about this?

The game was in a pretty great state before Drukhari dropped (Outside us poor tau, AM, GSC and some other 8th armies). Marines were back at a 50% winrate and the best factions weren't marines or marines and equivalents, being sob and harlequins. All 9th books had a fair chance agaisnt each other, maybe necrons are a little left behind right now but nothing that can't change without points reductions.

Drukhari are the outlier. And lets hope they aren't the heralds of a new age of power. Nerfing drukhari is NOT being pro-marine biased. They trump all other armies just the same. No, the meta WAS not marine skewed when most armies had to take the tools to kill sisters of battle or harlequins or demon and orks hordes to win tournaments. But theres not amount of optimization you can do agaisnt drukhari to have a consistent fair game against them. Thats the truth.
The game is honestly in a terrible state. The only thing keeping the numbers somewhat more reasonable is harlequins/SOB/Custodians/Daemons are really low play rate compared to their power. DA are obnoxious / DG and marine supplements were more reasonable....DE have errors and combos equivalent to 8.5 Iron hands. Game honestly sucks right now - unless you are just playing for fun.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in bg
Regular Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
[Because you are basically demanding that Xenos factions have to be inherently weaker because they are not popular, and that sucks.

That's the nature of the beast. Xeno factions don't have any underlying unified design the same way power armor does so if one of them is powerful it means that players of one specific faction are happy. If elite infantry is good CSM, Marines, Sisters, Necrons, Custodes, and DG are all likely to be in a decent spot and that makes a greater number of players happy. A game should focus on keeping the majority happy while giving minority factions a unique, but not overpowering niche.


Actually we have already done that 1-2 years ago and players were not more happy. I think it was considered even worst.
In fact SM players were so annoyed, because they played other SM players 24/7.
If SM are to good, than all will play SM, because most people have some marines.
Custodes and GK are super low count armies, so everyone who decide and had the money can acquire such army and it`s not hard to paint also.
So generally if you make power armor too good, it kills the diversity.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Tyran wrote:
That is a terrible argument because most players are not competitive nor go to tournaments. Thus according to your logic, the biggest focus should be keeping the vast casual majority happy, and such majority plays in an entirely different environment.

How do you balance around a casual scene that generates no statistics, has no indicators of skill, and which may be using custom scenarios and house rules? The short answer is that you can't so you shouldn't bother trying.

Moreover you are not asking them to not have an "overpowering niche", but to be straight up weaker and hope their niche is enough to make up for the imbalance.

Let me put it this way. In League of Legends assassin-type champions are generally tuned to be slightly weaker than the average champion. This is done because, across most levels of play, this class is found to be unfun to play against. They have a niche and dedicated assassin players can get wins with them but their difficulty and generally low stats means that you don't see them in every game.

This is how the most popular game in the world does balance, so why is 40k so special that it shouldn't do the same?
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Galas wrote:
Why are we arguing about this?

The game was in a pretty great state before Drukhari dropped (Outside us poor tau, AM, GSC and some other 8th armies).

Nah, pretty awful. Orks were pretty much the only faction with multiple competitive builds AFAIK, every other army had 0-1 builds that were competitive even before Drukhari. 9th edition is the narrative edition, I called it from the start. Getting rid of gamey mechanics like occupying the second floor of a ruin entirely to be unchargable, wrap and trap, paint points, fight in four ranks... Drukhari got great narrative rules as well I hear. If we shut up now then GW is going to get rid of points, there's nothing they'd rather want, none of the designers are any good at math and every codex and points release shows it.

We are arguing because GW shills won't acknowledge any wrongs made by GW and because Marine haters love to see Marine players suffer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:40:36


 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Canadian 5th wrote:

How do you balance around a casual scene that generates no statistics, has no indicators of skill, and which may be using custom scenarios and house rules? The short answer is that you can't so you shouldn't bother trying.


You definitely can, but it means putting more attention to interactions and mathematics than to tournaments. To be fair, GW sucks at that.


This is how the most popular game in the world does balance, so why is 40k so special that it shouldn't do the same?

Because a good percentage of the 40k player base doesn't play in that environment. A lot of it plays on smaller scale friendly gaming groups with more repeated interactions, instead of the random ones of tournament settings (or videogame matchmaking systems). In such environment, niche advantages don't really exists and thus armies need to be able to stand in even ground.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:44:45


 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Xenomancers wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Why are we arguing about this?

The game was in a pretty great state before Drukhari dropped (Outside us poor tau, AM, GSC and some other 8th armies). Marines were back at a 50% winrate and the best factions weren't marines or marines and equivalents, being sob and harlequins. All 9th books had a fair chance agaisnt each other, maybe necrons are a little left behind right now but nothing that can't change without points reductions.

Drukhari are the outlier. And lets hope they aren't the heralds of a new age of power. Nerfing drukhari is NOT being pro-marine biased. They trump all other armies just the same. No, the meta WAS not marine skewed when most armies had to take the tools to kill sisters of battle or harlequins or demon and orks hordes to win tournaments. But theres not amount of optimization you can do agaisnt drukhari to have a consistent fair game against them. Thats the truth.
The game is honestly in a terrible state. The only thing keeping the numbers somewhat more reasonable is harlequins/SOB/Custodians/Daemons are really low play rate compared to their power. DA are obnoxious / DG and marine supplements were more reasonable....DE have errors and combos equivalent to 8.5 Iron hands. Game honestly sucks right now - unless you are just playing for fun.
Honest I wonder how bad the complaints would be if there was no Covid and everyone was actually playing eachother as much as we used to.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Tyran wrote:
Because a good percentage of the 40k player base doesn't play in that environment. A lot of it plays on smaller scale friendly gaming groups with more repeated interactions, instead of the random ones of tournament settings (or videogame matchmaking systems). In such environment, niche advantages don't really exists and thus armies need to be able to stand in even ground.

Shouldn't a small scale tight-knit group be able to fix their own specific issues and play in a way that lets niches shine often enough to keep everybody happy? You're already likely aiming for a 50/50 win rate for everybody and nerfing the more skilled players in your group, so why not do the same for armies that cause you trouble?
   
Made in it
Focused Fire Warrior





ccs wrote:
 Aenar 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

Apologies, it was an enormous quote so I cut it just for the relevant part and I made a mistake

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:50:55



 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 vict0988 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Why are we arguing about this?

The game was in a pretty great state before Drukhari dropped (Outside us poor tau, AM, GSC and some other 8th armies).

Nah, pretty awful. Orks were pretty much the only faction with multiple competitive builds AFAIK, every other army had 0-1 builds that were competitive even before Drukhari. 9th edition is the narrative edition, I called it from the start. Getting rid of gamey mechanics like occupying the second floor of a ruin entirely to be unchargable, wrap and trap, paint points, fight in four ranks... Drukhari got great narrative rules as well I hear. If we shut up now then GW is going to get rid of points, there's nothing they'd rather want, none of the designers are any good at math and every codex and points release shows it.

We are arguing because GW shills won't acknowledge any wrongs made by GW and because Marine haters love to see Marine players suffer.


I have to disagree here, TBH. I have played extensively in TTS, a "meta" more know for the ease of spamming the most broken gak, and 9th was heading on a great direction.

Most factions, in the most competitive tops, have always at best one build. But thats true everywhere. Once the most optimal solution to a problem has been reached theres little reason to use other stuff. But thats a flawed metric.

Necrons, for example, at this point in time cannot compete without warrior spam agaisnt the biggest stuff out there thas true. But the new book made possible to make a ton of lists that have enough tools and power to face most other lists of the game. Heavy warrior lists, heavy elite lists with inmortals, praetorans and lychguard, canoptek heavy lists, probably vehicles are the weakers but this is an edition were vehicles are pretty weak.

Of course, for most people here I'm saying crazy talk and everything is trash and you only face the tournament-winning lists everywhere. But normally I measure how good a edition is by the difference in power of the good stuff and the "Normal" stuff, and before drukhari, for most codexe, internal balance was pretty reasonable.

I'll say it: Most space marine units are extremely reasonable with the exception of some very overpriced vehicles (And some units like scouts) and you can make strong marine armies with most units in the codex and face most other armies outside the 5 top tournament lists and have a reasonable chance of winning.

It is not as good as post 2.0 marine codex but pre-supplement meta, that was the top of balance 40k has achieved in probably 10 years but is not that bad.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 17:56:04


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Reading a Book in the Tower of Prospero





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

The meta is still undeniably some SM faction, particularly a type of meta where most on foot.

This is because 9th edition changed so much (ie board size and new mission rules for scoring), such that it wasn't worth putting these SM in rhinos or some other troop transport.

What does DE do really, really well?

They kill SM. They are the anti-elite counter army.

Their weapons/stats/options are totally geared for anti-SM.

However, DE shooting at SM vehicles? Not as efficient as folks believe.

The cynic in me believes this was purposely designed to bust up the meta a bit by GW. Why purposely? They want to sell more vehicle models or simply non-infantry SM models.

I still say, for SM, no one should leave home without bringing 2 or 3 vokite culverin Contemptors. Yes, that'll leave your total CP dangerously low, but these guys are the bane of my DE list and they do reasonably well against other non-DE armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 18:01:33


6000
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!

4000

∞ Chaos Daemons and CSM


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: