Switch Theme:

Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  [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 it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Tyel wrote:
There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Multiple factions at 60% or more is what we had in 7th when SM, tau and Eldar dominated the game and were almost impossible to beat by any other faction.

Now if that happens for a couple of months no problem, very few players could be able to field the most oppressive lists and things would be corrected soon anyway. How many players actually brought 6-9 voidweavers to the table? That's why I think that, despite the power creep is still real, things are tolerable now. We're nowhere near what we had in 7th at least.

 
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches..


Uuh the data collectors can't be silly enough to include mirror matches in their data can they?

2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches..


Uuh the data collectors can't be silly enough to include mirror matches in their data can they?


Usually the data is presented as just a pure win%, including mirror matches. It's also very common to show the % without the mirror, especially for the top-performing factions when they make up a large portion of the armies with the potential to place at large tournaments. I think Harelquins may have been over 80% win rate in non-mirror matches at one point, for example.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





For those not in the know - you can check the fight club website and see the breakdowns now:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cliff.thomas3637/viz/40kFightClubTheMetaDataDashboard/40kFightClub-MetaDashboard?publish=yes

   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Blackie wrote:
Tyel wrote:
There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Multiple factions at 60% or more is what we had in 7th when SM, tau and Eldar dominated the game and were almost impossible to beat by any other faction.

Now if that happens for a couple of months no problem, very few players could be able to field the most oppressive lists and things would be corrected soon anyway. How many players actually brought 6-9 voidweavers to the table? That's why I think that, despite the power creep is still real, things are tolerable now. We're nowhere near what we had in 7th at least.


People really underestimate just how fethed up 7th was. If you owned 3 boxes of Windriders, you were basically untouchable by half the factions in the game.

Also, it gets lost in the annals of time, but Tau weren't actually all that great, even with triptide. Daemons were the consistent 3rd of the 7th triumverate, being the indisputable champions of the end of the edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/24 17:48:08


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




From memory Riptide wings just had massive skew on whether they went first or second. Which was kind of an issue generally because things like invisibility were broken but did have to be cast.

But yes. 7th was awful. I suspect it could have been better if GW had approached balance in a similar way to how they do now - but we'll never know.

Tbh watching some reviews of 30k is bringing back just how incoherent and weird old-edition 40k was. I'm sure it can work (and balance may be better when 95%+ players are set to play Space Marine variants) - but there's a lot of clunk I wasn't sad to see the back of.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Considering the immense skew towards 50/50, anything above 55 is a problem. Multiple factions above 60 is a shitshow.


The skew to 50/50 is caused by mirror matches..


Uuh the data collectors can't be silly enough to include mirror matches in their data can they?


Auspex tactics is that dumb, but goonhammer adjusts for it.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Adjusting for mirror makes sense only when one faction is both highly played and has a win rate which is very far from 50%. Otherwise it doesn't really make a difference.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Adjusting for mirror makes sense only when one faction is both highly played and has a win rate which is very far from 50%. Otherwise it doesn't really make a difference.


Not really. If its overall win rate is so high it dominates the top tables, you end up with proportionately more mirror matches. Since the non-mirror win% is very high, the 50% mirror win% has quite a large effect on the overall win% in these cases. It's worthwhile splitting out the mirror vs non-mirror data in those situations, and we've seen that recently with Harelquins.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I only have a problem with mirrors when you apply it to all flavors of marines. Some of them operate so differently, in list and function, that it doesn't make sense.

A mirror when you have two harlie lists spamming the same unit? Sure. Nids are pretty diverse, but we don't have the granularity to split anything out yet.

   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

Spoiler:
ERJAK wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Tyel wrote:
There's issues of faction versus faction winrates - but if a 55% was universal, and a 45% was universal, I'm not sure its that apocalyptic. We play 20 games, you'd expect to win 11, I'd expect to win 9. I'm not sure you'd be able to call any specific game on that basis. You'd have an advantage - but not an overwhelming one.

Even a 60/40 wouldn't be that bad (we play 10 games, you win 6 etc) - the problem is that it isn't universal, and so that "60% win rate faction" inevitably moves up to something like an 80%+ win rate versus the non-good factions. And this often gets further skewed to 90%+ by things like who goes first, what mission you get etc.

For something like MTG I think that's tolerable (just play again with different decks) - but not 40k where it can still take 2-3 hours to play through to the inevitable result.

But with that said, I think the balance is better than it was at the start of 2022.


Multiple factions at 60% or more is what we had in 7th when SM, tau and Eldar dominated the game and were almost impossible to beat by any other faction.

Now if that happens for a couple of months no problem, very few players could be able to field the most oppressive lists and things would be corrected soon anyway. How many players actually brought 6-9 voidweavers to the table? That's why I think that, despite the power creep is still real, things are tolerable now. We're nowhere near what we had in 7th at least.


People really underestimate just how fethed up 7th was. If you owned 3 boxes of Windriders, you were basically untouchable by half the factions in the game.

Also, it gets lost in the annals of time, but Tau weren't actually all that great, even with triptide. Daemons were the consistent 3rd of the 7th triumverate, being the indisputable champions of the end of the edition.
7th was a circus. Toward the end I played in a tourney with my Imperial Khornate Sister Wolves for the Greater Good. I had Sisters, Wolf Cav, the formation of 3 SM librarians, running daemonology summoning bloodthirsters, sisters of silence, and a riptide wing. Required 9 books and was completely legal.

 
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I only have a problem with mirrors when you apply it to all flavors of marines. Some of them operate so differently, in list and function, that it doesn't make sense.

A mirror when you have two harlie lists spamming the same unit? Sure. Nids are pretty diverse, but we don't have the granularity to split anything out yet.


At this point I believe there are 4 different competitive Tyranid archetypes.

We have Leviathan warrior spam, Kraken Ravener spam, Jormungadr heavy deepstrike lists with deepstriking carnifexes, and Behemoth. Admittedly I still do not figure out Behemoth aside that it is a clearly melee focused.

*The support part of these lists are not fixed. Harpies, Neurothropes, Zoanthropes and Winged Tyrants are common across all lists but I have also seen Exocrines, Tyrannofexes, Parasite, Walkrants, Primes, Biovores, Pyrovores, etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 16:13:43


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Tyran wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I only have a problem with mirrors when you apply it to all flavors of marines. Some of them operate so differently, in list and function, that it doesn't make sense.

A mirror when you have two harlie lists spamming the same unit? Sure. Nids are pretty diverse, but we don't have the granularity to split anything out yet.


At this point I believe there are 4 different competitive Tyranid archetypes.

We have Leviathan warrior spam, Kraken Ravener spam, Jormungadr heavy deepstrike lists with deepstriking carnifexes, and Behemoth. Admittedly I still do not figure out Behemoth aside that it is a clearly melee focused.

*The support part of these lists are not fixed. Harpies, Neurothropes, Zoanthropes and Winged Tyrants are common across all lists but I have also seen Exocrines, Tyrannofexes, Parasite, Walkrants, Primes, Biovores, Pyrovores, etc.


The internal balance of the book is amazing. If the external balance wasn't so terrible, we'd be talking about it as one of the best codexes GW ever released.

As it stands, you could pretty much do an across the board 10% bump to everything but the gaunts and maybe genestealers and still end up with one of the best codexes in the game.

Also, not for nothing, harlies need another hit. Specifically troupes.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




When an army is just generally too good, you probably want to go after the buff/rules architecture rather than nerfing every datasheet (although I think some things are clearly a cut above).

So for example, the Zoanthrope Warp Sheilding Psychic Imperative. Immediately nerf that to 5++/6++ respectively, rather than 4++/5++.

Possibly push Dermic Symbiosis (the 4++) up to 40 points if you want it on a Harpy. I'd then probably say Warriors now have to pay 3 points for a shooting weapon, and 2 points for twin Boneswords. Raveners have to pay 5 points for a shooting weapon.

See how things go from there.

For Harlequins I'd say Troupes should go up by 2 points. Then I'd look to nerf Luck of the Laughing God - perhaps so you only get 1, or even zero free rerolls at all game sizes. I'm not sure having 2-3 fewer rerolls (on average) a turn is a cutting nerf - but it might go someway to bringing things in line. Otherwise its back to troupes must go up, bikes must go up, all 4 characters could probably do with 5-10 points etc, as we try to bring this down to some vaguely sensible level you can't just listbuild your way out of.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




ERJAK 805044 11369850 wrote:

The internal balance of the book is amazing. If the external balance wasn't so terrible, we'd be talking about it as one of the best codexes GW ever released.

As it stands, you could pretty much do an across the board 10% bump to everything but the gaunts and maybe genestealers and still end up with one of the best codexes in the game.

Also, not for nothing, harlies need another hit. Specifically troupes.

We already had a book like that. DE were in a state where for a long time it didn't really matter what someone play with, because everything was both super efficient and undercosted. I expect tyranids to be the same. As soon as GW nerfs some army type for nids, which they think is the problem, we will get tyranids switch to a different build. And because we are so close to an edition end, GW really doesn't have much entice to do anything about it.

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 nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yep. Nids are just like DE. And unless we want to spend the next 9 months seeing Nids move from build to build as they get slowly nerfed until finally arriving somewhere decent GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.

There is no problem with a codex having multiple viable builds, its great.
Its a problem when there are multiple viable builds because everything is to cheap compared to the other armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/26 10:39:22


 
   
Made in mx
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

Tyel wrote:
When an army is just generally too good, you probably want to go after the buff/rules architecture rather than nerfing every datasheet (although I think some things are clearly a cut above).

So for example, the Zoanthrope Warp Sheilding Psychic Imperative. Immediately nerf that to 5++/6++ respectively, rather than 4++/5++.

Possibly push Dermic Symbiosis (the 4++) up to 40 points if you want it on a Harpy. I'd then probably say Warriors now have to pay 3 points for a shooting weapon, and 2 points for twin Boneswords. Raveners have to pay 5 points for a shooting weapon.

See how things go from there.

For Harlequins I'd say Troupes should go up by 2 points. Then I'd look to nerf Luck of the Laughing God - perhaps so you only get 1, or even zero free rerolls at all game sizes. I'm not sure having 2-3 fewer rerolls (on average) a turn is a cutting nerf - but it might go someway to bringing things in line. Otherwise its back to troupes must go up, bikes must go up, all 4 characters could probably do with 5-10 points etc, as we try to bring this down to some vaguely sensible level you can't just listbuild your way out of.


Why go after the defensive buffs/rules though? 40k has a lethality problem, and even the highly efficient Tyranid profiles are not that hard to kill to other competitive armies.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Tyran wrote:
Why go after the defensive buffs/rules though? 40k has a lethality problem, and even the highly efficient Tyranid profiles are not that hard to kill to other competitive armies.


If I'm honest - because its easier to do than going line by line to reduce damage output and because I think that's the sort of thing GW would do.

Rather than say going (for example) "....so Tyranid Warriors are back to S4 base, and Boneswords are now only damage 1, and the Devourer will have 4 shots and the Deathspitter will be AP-1."
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

If we are being honest, GW is going to do what they did with DE, which is a slow release of layered nerfs that eventually leave the Tyranids in a good place.. after 6-9 months of dominating the meta.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/26 13:41:40


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Upstate, New York

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/05/26 14:48:54


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


No, but the FotM player will buy the new FotM and the person buying bits of their old army will likely either be supplanting an existing force or using it as a basis to add to. There's still 1 and a bit of new armies sold in this process.
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

At the very least, GW probably got a lot of people to buy Raveners, Harpies and Pyrovores because there is no way there were a lot of those kits in circulation before the 9th ed codex.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/26 15:08:18


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.


To quote a manager I once had: "Don't worry about it, it's been taken into account."
I'm sure GW knows how to run their business better than any of us do.
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon





 Tyran wrote:
At the very least, GW probably got a lot of people to buy Raveners, Harpies and Pyrovores because there is no way there were a lot of those kits in circulation before the 9th ed codex.


Proud owner of 18 Raveners, 3 Harpies, and 6 Pyrovores since... ~2019 or so?

Yes, I have a problem
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


And how many will start new nid armies?

If poor balance was going to make you quit, this might be the straw the breaks you, but is nothing new. The same could be said for the lest few codexes. Or editions (although I do feel that external codex balance is worse then normal for 40k these days)
The players that quit sell their armies; so unless a greater number of players start new ones that is a net loss for GW. And that is something their management doesn't seem to understand.

Even when Nids eventually rotate out and the FotM players move on, their armies are sold second hand. They aren't just thrown out to create 100% fresh new sales.


So you claim...but evidence is showing otherwise. Gw marketing works like charm.

Funny thing that. Professionals knowing more than random internet nobodies.

2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Ordana wrote:
GW needs to do a pass of the entire codex.


We have CA and a dataslate coming in like...a few weeks?

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I feel 9th's big issues are lethality and army complexity putting off new & infrequent players rather than faction X being overpowered for 3-6 months. Most of these players will get in 2-3 games over such a period and never even see a Tyranid.

I guess there are knock ons - because if the whole Esports scene is saying "40k is terribly unbalanced right now" it can bleed into discouragement of everyone else. But I'm not sure its an automatic follow.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wonder how many players will get fed up and quit while GW does that.


Nids aren't THAT oppressive after the FAQ changes. They're clearly a cut above everything but harlequins but they are beatable with solid play and a couple of mistakes on your opponent's part.

They need another hit for sure, but they're not that much more OP in practice than Nurgle is in AoS or Novitiates are in Killteam.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: