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.

bananathug wrote:
I don't see how anyone can defend the price difference between a disintegrator cannon and a grav-cannon. Come on, they've had access to existing unit stats since before 8th dropped. They had a baseline when they designed the indexes it seemed like. It just appears that they've thrown that baseline away in order to sell more models.

It doesn't take thousands of hours to throw some numbers in a spread sheet and see how a weapon that costs nearly half of another but out performs it greatly against most weapons isn't balanced.

They tried with the index and should have used balance against the index as their baseline. Instead they release the mathematically unbalanced guard codex (really, hard to tell that mobs of 50 morale immune conscripts was op??).

The index armies were close to balanced. A couple outliers but that's what they should have fixed with the codex. The power creep isn't "oh, GW can't run super-computer simulations for weeks at a time." Hell an excel spreadsheet and some data entry isn't too much to ask. The power creep is is so bad it's hard to attribute it to anything other than a desire to sell models along with the codex release so they make a couple units in it strong so you want to add them to your collection.

But now they've shifted the powerband of the existing units so in order to make the next batch of models desirable they need to add more leading to the problems we're facing now where the first couple dexes need a redesign or serious re-pointing in order to keep up with where GW has shifted their own game (it's not like someone else did this to them).

multi-damage weaponry, especially the 2 or D3 damage variety, was across-the-board overpriced in the indexes. As were psykers outputting mortal wounds, and auto-hit weaponry. since the SM codex is essentially an index with traits (they didn't rebalance it based on play data from the indexes) weaponry like grav guns are overcosted.

Nobody is defending 15pt dissies and 28pt grav-cannons. What I will defend is the fact that at the time the rules for the grav-cannon were released, the Disintegrator cannon was THIRTY points. Not 15. and it was obviously underpowered compared to competing options...just like a grav cannon.

Thank you ^^ some actual sense in this thread.

But then what's the reason to drop it to 15? They came up with the original 30 based on something.

And 30 dissies vs 28 grav isn't that bad when you compare their output (grav better if it stays still but with less range, dissies better if they move and get +50% range and against anything with a 4+) It's more fair than 15 vs 28 the other way.

Same with the Tau rules, eldar rules, Nids rules. There are examples from all of those dexes with significant price drops to currently op units (reapers, shining spears, hive guard, fire warriors, Longstrike, heavy burst cannons....) I can't come up with a compelling reason why the codex versions needed to be so much better (like 40-75% more efficient/durable) than the index versions other than to move models because it sure wasn't to "keep up" with the first round of dexes.

bananathug wrote:
But then what's the reason to drop it to 15? They came up with the original 30 based on something.

And 30 dissies vs 28 grav isn't that bad when you compare their output (grav better if it stays still but with less range, dissies better if they move and get +50% range and against anything with a 4+) It's more fair than 15 vs 28 the other way.

Same with the Tau rules, eldar rules, Nids rules. There are examples from all of those dexes with significant price drops to currently op units (reapers, shining spears, hive guard, fire warriors, Longstrike, heavy burst cannons....) I can't come up with a compelling reason why the codex versions needed to be so much better (like 40-75% more efficient/durable) than the index versions other than to move models because it sure wasn't to "keep up" with the first round of dexes.

Your selective memory is showing.

Yes, some units that were already strong got unnecessary drops in price. The most obvious was Dark Reapers (which, oh, look, have been nerfed back to within 2pts of their previous price, how about that!) but seriously? Longstrike? Heavy burst riptides? One, how are those currently overpowered, and two, how were they not horribly underpowered in the index?

There were obvious systemic over-valuing problems with the index. Honestly, it seemed more indicative that GW wasn't quite sure how much to value mid damage weapons, mortal wounds, autohits or other mechanics that were new to the game, and they wanted to be REALLY REALLY sure that they were not releasing something that was going to turn into a giant clusterfeth immediately.

Remember how gak 50 malefic lords felt to play against? That's the situation main studio GW was trying hard to avoid with the indexes. And honestly, while we saw plenty of indexes in tournaments, internal balance was pretty off. Were you really taking Grav Cannons when everyone was in index?

The reason to drop disintegrators was obvious - it was terribly inefficient unless you were shooting at specifically W2 models, and its ability to remove them was overvalued in its pricing. They probably overshot by about 3-5 points with 15. Comparing it to a grav cannon (a weapon that needs a buff because it's terrible compared to almost everything) is asinine. Its like saying "hey whats with these busted assault marines, my striking scorpions are garbage compared to them!"

I laugh at the notion that the index stuff was more balanced than the codices. Codex balance is bad but damn you really can't defend the Index when it gave crap like Conscripts and Commisars, and the fact that the Index Necrons were probably the worst set of rules released ever.

Karol wrote:
I did that with my GK. My friends convinced me that it is going to be fun to play w40k, and they started it in may after confirmation money. I picked GK, because they looked nice and I could afford them. I wasn't crunching anything, because I expected all armies to be more or less the same, if they cost the same money. though that the difference between a "real" army and what I got was that the "real" army costs like a vintage in MtG. And I was more or less wrong, plus the gap between armies seems to be huge. Although I have not played all armies. Can't say how ad mecha or some types of space marines are doing right now, as no one plays them here.

I guarantee you GW do not have this.

A huge company like GW can't hire 8 people to do in house testing Don't they have profits in like milions? But if they can't afford it, why not out source it. The models themself cost next to nothing for GW, and they have chains of store in places like UK. They could ask an employ or people at the store to play a few games and they could do it in an instant. Plus if they showed the rules before puting them to print, people would find what is broken in like minutes. I mean, I understand being overworked etc, but no one at the studio sat down and thought, guys maybe a reaper launcher on a model with no negatives to hit, that can be spamed and can chain shot is a bit too much?

OK, I absolutely agree that GW appear to have dropped the ball on Grey Knights, and I’m sorry for you that you have spent your limited gaming money on them and feel like you’ve been ripped off. That sucks. I love the GK models myself, and would definitely consider collecting them at some point. But having collected a bottom-tier army once already (CSMs from the start of 6th edition) I don’t really want to do that again.

As for GW, it sounds harsh but you are misunderstanding the point of the business a little. Their main priority is not making the very best tabletop wargame that they can, that is very much secondary to making money. Yes they could hire more testers, or implement a formal large-scale employee testing program with a view to improving balance... but would doing that make them significantly more money?

Also, I think it was mentioned earlier, but as a relative newcomer you’re just not seeing how different the ‘new’ GW is. They’ve done 19 new codexes in about a year. It used to be more like one every 3 months or so, and that was shared between 40k and fantasy. You could go for a whole edition of 40k without a codex update for your army. Dark Eldar, for instance, only got codexes in 3rd, 5th and 7th editions... The change since 8th edition is massive. It may not be the most reassuring thing ever, but it’s better than it was.

It seems like a lot of the beef with this edition is how strong alpha strikes are, how deadly most things are, internal balance being really off and external balance between beta 8th armies and 8th armies.

I think that if GW had been as judicious with their second wave of codexes and then used CA to fine tune those first couple drops we would be in a much better place, rather than throw things like grinding advance and reapers around so we end up in this race to table your opponent by turn 2 that they've gotten themselves into.

I'm not saying that those options I thought of off the top of my head are OP compared to where we are now, but that they are significantly more powerful than their index counterparts and thus are responsible for the power creep we find ourselves in now. But even the within codex stuff is crazy imbalanced so maybe that rebuts my idea that GW should be able to balance cross codex though and supports your contention they are just bad at balance in general...

And yes, I was using grav in index as it is one of the most point efficient marine weapons against a variety of targets (but I do concede that comparing anything to marines is a pointless endeavor but that is the direct result of the power creep which I'm criticizing.)

Forgeworld is it's own problem (Malific lords) and we see how GW brings the hammer down on those (or doesn't with fire raptors bouncing in points).

I'd argue that it's possible to get the balance a lot better than they did (both cross codex and internal codex) by using a bit of math-hammer as a baseline (will not answer all problems and I'd admit that a lot of the imbalance is from strategies which are hard to quantify)

I'd posit that their desire to make codexes better than the indexes (pretty much across the board) seems to be driven by the desire to sell models by using more powerful codex rules rather than what's best for the game or balance. This has created a situation where new codexes have to be even better than the previous ones because now instead of using the rather conservative indexes as a baseline they are forced to use the new increased powerlevel as a starting point.

I agree that the indexes were far from perfect but seemed to be a better jumping off point to balance vs. where we are now.

It's telling that most people could spot the outliers as the the undercosted units days into the releases of the codexes.

And overshooting disi cannons by your number of 3-5 is missing by 20-30% which is significant considering a lot of armies are running 10-20 of them (that's like pricing knights 100-200 points cheaper...)

Just to be clear, my main points are:
1. Yes GW should be able to do a better job a balance both internally and cross codex by using basic tools. Weekend warriors can spot the outliers within days of codex releases (not that they are always right but some of them have really stuck out)
2. The current level of imbalance is created by GW using new codex releases to push the sales of models instead of actually trying to balance the game.
3. Codex creep begets further codex creep as we get further away from the index levels of power and now are at the dark eldar level of balance so prepare for our new orc overlords (this wouldn't be so bad, they probably deserve it)

it is pretty dang difficult to argue that you can't make a more obnoxious and overpowered army out of the index rules at release than you can now with codexes. automagical first turn if you finish deploying first, flyers that secure objectives and ynnari soulbursting once per unit per turn instead of once per turn? Oh, or maybe you'd like back screens of culexus assassins presenting the only targetable models on the board? 3 point conscripts backed up by old commissars?

I'd agree with all of those points. But very few of them have to do with the costing of said units...

bananathug wrote:
I'd agree with all of those points. But very few of them have to do with the costing of said units...

Who's talking about solely costing? You're putting on your rose-goggles for the index days before all these horrible broken codexes came out, I'm merely supplying a reality check of just how much more broken the competitive lists at the time were.

it was so. much. more. broken.

The indexes were not only more imbalanced, they where much more bland and uninteresting

I cant take seriously the affirmation that indexes where better.

Those rules changes were handled admirably well by GW. And I am in no way saying the Indexes were balanced or better (if that's what you are getting from my posts I'm sorry I'm not more clear)

What I am saying is that the indexes were a better jumping off point in trying to achieve balance than the power creep spot we find ourselves in. Further, GW seems to be moving away from their conservative changes from the index. Now the reasons they are doing that I could never know but my guess is "new and powerful" means something different when the indexes were the baseline vs. eldar/imperial soup.

Balancing against index everything seems a better place than balancing against codex dark eldar. They've had plenty of time to figure out the outliers in the index and adjust their baseline, trying to balance against the current meta is leading to a lot of knee-jerking and making the situation worse (rule of 3, tau commander nerf, points yo-yoing)

 Galas wrote:
The indexes were not only more imbalanced, they where much more bland and uninteresting

I cant take seriously the affirmation that indexes where better.

7th ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent piles his whole army into a single 2000pt unit with a 2++ rerollable invuln save and the ability to be only hit on 6s and immunity to all template weapons is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!

7.5 ed: man, this strat3gy where my opponent gets to play a 3000 point list against my 2000pt list because he ran out and purchased particular models is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!

8 ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent takes 200 T3 4++ functionally fearless obsec models and 12 30 point models with full power smite is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!

8.5ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent's units and weaponry are mathematically more efficient than units and weaponry I can cherrypick from my codex is really uninteractive and BS. WTF, only 8 factions are commonly present in top table lists, with 6 more not as common but still present? Truly we are in the darkest of ages, older editions were better!

 Galas wrote:
The indexes were not only more imbalanced, they where much more bland and uninteresting

I cant take seriously the affirmation that indexes where better.

In an era of incredibly short memory retention, this is largely nostalgia from last fall when Index/Codex armies were a pretty haves/have nots split.

8 ed: Man, this strategy where my opponent takes 200 T3 4++ functionally fearless obsec models and 12 30 point models with full power smite is really uninteractive and BS. Older editions were better!

Damn, I am actually happy I didn't get to play in this 8th ed. I would be twice as salty. a 30pts normal smite seems crazy good. A termintor costs more and you have to take 5 of those to get a nerfed one. So I guess stuff does get better. I wonder how GK players felt about their nerfed smite back when this abomination was runing around

Yes they could hire more testers, or implement a formal large-scale employee testing program with a view to improving balance... but would doing that make them significantly more money?

Wait so they are doing like an EA thing, every year total meta change so people have to switch armes every 6-9 months, bait options to buy for people who don't know better etc

Also, I think it was mentioned earlier, but as a relative newcomer you’re just not seeing how different the ‘new’ GW is. They’ve done 19 new codexes in about a year. It used to be more like one every 3 months or so, and that was shared between 40k and fantasy. You could go for a whole edition of 40k without a codex update for your army. Dark Eldar, for instance, only got codexes in 3rd, 5th and 7th editions... The change since 8th edition is massive. It may not be the most reassuring thing ever, but it’s better than it was.

You are right, I don't know how stuff looked like even 2 months ago. I understand that stuff were worse back in the past. But the fact that GW did 19 books, and the ones I don't play, are better doesn't really make me happy. Plus getting an update on top of the codex, that is more or less identical seems like a wasted slot. I would have rather some other army got the slot, and maybe got a better codex. The difference between playing GK index and codex seems minimal.

I wonder if when the cycle ends, GW is going to stop updating old books and just does the yearly rules update, or will they re do the armies all over again.

Karol wrote:

I wonder if when the cycle ends, GW is going to stop updating old books and just does the yearly rules update, or will they re do the armies all over again.

I sure hope not.

What they need to do is keep tweaking the rules to make a better playset and point costing.

Cover rules, terrain rules, dice and reroll reduction, a better fix to templates, More wargear and upgrades to characters/squad leaders and vehicle upgrades.

When I can take 13 Leman Russes ( 3 groups of 3, 3 commanders and pask) but can't take 4 veterans squads, the rule seems counter intuitive.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
When I can take 13 Leman Russes ( 3 groups of 3, 3 commanders and pask) but can't take 4 veterans squads, the rule seems counter intuitive.

You can actually take far more.

Pask (Codex: Astra Copywritum)

3x Tank Commanders (Codex: Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Battle Tanks (Codex: Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Demolishers (Index: Imperium 2)

9x Leman Russ Annihilator (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Conqueror (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Stygies Vanquisher (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

9x Death Korps of Krieg Mars-Alpha Leman Russ Battle Tank (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

There is some debate on whether the "Leman Russ Demolishers" datasheet can still be taken (it depends on how you interpret "Does your model have a datasheet the codex?"), but you can take 58 Leman Russes in a Matched Play Army.

But taking 4 units of Flash Gitz is considered horrific and spammy and must be FORBIDDEN!

I think the rule needs a tweak to stop silly spammy armies but the intention is good and a positive sign. Maybe it should be off keywords rather than datasheet titles.

Has there been any change to the Tau Commander ruling since they introduced the Rule Of Three?
If we're limited to 3 of each datasheet anyway, and with plenty of ways to abuse that (see: BCB's 85,000 Russes list above) are they really still suggesting that Tau commanders are SO overpowered that only one can be fielded at a time?

I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.

After all everyone plays because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...

craggy wrote:
Has there been any change to the Tau Commander ruling since they introduced the Rule Of Three?
If we're limited to 3 of each datasheet anyway, and with plenty of ways to abuse that (see: BCB's 85,000 Russes list above) are they really still suggesting that Tau commanders are SO overpowered that only one can be fielded at a time?

Nothing has really been announced, but I think the next rotation of FAQ/CA will help with that. Especially considering the deep strike nerf heavily impacts non-coldstar commanders. It is hard to tell though since you have very vocal anti-Tau people like the post above. It doesn't matter if Tau spammed Commanders for the same exact reason Orks spammed boyz. (The only viable competitive list) Tau are in a much better spot right now, but it feels awkward to have not only a unique keyword rule of 3, but have extra detachment tax on top of that.

 DominayTrix wrote:

craggy wrote:
Has there been any change to the Tau Commander ruling since they introduced the Rule Of Three?
If we're limited to 3 of each datasheet anyway, and with plenty of ways to abuse that (see: BCB's 85,000 Russes list above) are they really still suggesting that Tau commanders are SO overpowered that only one can be fielded at a time?

Nothing has really been announced, but I think the next rotation of FAQ/CA will help with that. Especially considering the deep strike nerf heavily impacts non-coldstar commanders. It is hard to tell though since you have very vocal anti-Tau people like the post above. It doesn't matter if Tau spammed Commanders for the same exact reason Orks spammed boyz. (The only viable competitive list) Tau are in a much better spot right now, but it feels awkward to have not only a unique keyword rule of 3, but have extra detachment tax on top of that.

To be honest I'd half expect them to extend it to other troublesome HQ choices (Custodes, Daemon Princes) rather than remove it.

ValentineGames wrote:
I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.

After all everyone played because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...

so how the hell players plays in 3-4-5 th edition when rule of 3 was built in army composition with the FOC? i guess players got upset cause they spent lot of money buying 9 pbc and now they cant play again, but this is their fault not Gw fault, i repeat unless ur a spammer this rules wont hurt you and you keep easily and happily play, only spammers can bother about rule of 3. We old players played for years and years with just 3 elite 2 Hq 3 fast 3 heavy 6 troops, no one ever complained.
I play regularly at tournaments getting excellent results and never feel the need to play more than 3x, if i can everyone can, or you play narrative and you can use you 9 pbc, in narrative there is not rule of 3, this lame about the rule is pointless, just dont come at tournaments if you dont like it, plain and simple, in garage with ur bro you can play what the hell you prefer.

Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.

My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.

EVERY tournament lists play with that limitation, never seen those faboulous 9 leman russes for example, i play Dg+Ts+N demons and i played same way before and after the FAQ, never played more than 3x and had similar results, so it s not the rule of 3 is the player, if you are unable to win without spamming 7 flyrants well impriove your skill playing more, what else i can say. Lists which aren't competitive now wasn't before the FAQ too (maybe GK are the exception).
If you take a look at actual players standing who won before FAQ keep winning also after faq... ask yourself why, if were just cause they could spam they should lost now but they dont so...

 blackmage wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.

After all everyone played because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...

so how the hell players plays in 3-4-5 th edition when rule of 3 was built in army composition with the FOC? i guess players got upset cause they spent lot of money buying 9 pbc and now they cant play again, but this is their fault not Gw fault, i repeat unless ur a spammer this rules wont hurt you and you keep easily and happily play, only spammers can bother about rule of 3. We old players played for years and years with just 3 elite 2 Hq 3 fast 3 heavy 6 troops, no one ever complained.
I play regularly at tournaments getting excellent results and never feel the need to play more than 3x, if i can everyone can, or you play narrative and you can use you 9 pbc, in narrative there is not rule of 3, this lame about the rule is pointless, just dont come at tournaments if you dont like it, plain and simple, in garage with ur bro you can play what the hell you prefer.

In a way, it's definitely GWs fault. They allowed more than 3 of a thing, so people bought more than 3 of things with the expectation that they would be able to play them. I agree it's kind of powergamey, but again GW designs the game and players just react.

I like the rule of three, but it's unfortunate that GW ever allowed unrestricted FoC options in 6th and 7th and understandable why people might be upset with the return to limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.

My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.

GK were not made worse by the rule of three in any noticable way.

jcd386 wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
I don't think they ever expected anyone to be sad and pathetic enough to spam tau commanders.
In fact I doubt GW has any clue how unimaginative and dull and lame it's competitive player base is.
So this rule of 3 is likely something they never imagined having to implement.

After all everyone played because they care about the setting and it's a friendly environment...right?...no need to police such charming mature fans...right?...

so how the hell players plays in 3-4-5 th edition when rule of 3 was built in army composition with the FOC? i guess players got upset cause they spent lot of money buying 9 pbc and now they cant play again, but this is their fault not Gw fault, i repeat unless ur a spammer this rules wont hurt you and you keep easily and happily play, only spammers can bother about rule of 3. We old players played for years and years with just 3 elite 2 Hq 3 fast 3 heavy 6 troops, no one ever complained.
I play regularly at tournaments getting excellent results and never feel the need to play more than 3x, if i can everyone can, or you play narrative and you can use you 9 pbc, in narrative there is not rule of 3, this lame about the rule is pointless, just dont come at tournaments if you dont like it, plain and simple, in garage with ur bro you can play what the hell you prefer.

In a way, it's definitely GWs fault. They allowed more than 3 of a thing, so people bought more than 3 of things with the expectation that they would be able to play them. I agree it's kind of powergamey, but again GW designs the game and players just react.

I like the rule of three, but it's unfortunate that GW ever allowed unrestricted FoC options in 6th and 7th and understandable why people might be upset with the return to limitations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Your army unit choices have to be really good, or it has access to stuff that gets around the rule of 3 like vehicle squadrons.

My army got a lot worse by the addition of rule 3. Someone else gave the example of his army he liked to play which is not illegal, because he can only take 3 units of kommandos.

GK were not made worse by the rule of three in any noticable way.

since start of edition GW cutted down any OP/undercosted unit, if you are blind and keep buying models to copy internet list withiout being aware they will be cutted too is your fault, i think is clear enough GW have no problems "limiting" they make their business if players follow that trend then they cant complain. I could play 9 Dp's i never did so if they want limit themto 3 im fine, if you want play, and buy, 7 Dp well... good luck, dont understand how the "new GW" works is the best way to waste your money, also the dumber of dumbest understand a troop with tsi 4++ cant cost 3pts (brimstones) was clear they would get the axe on their head, you bought 200,you silly and you deserve, im sorry. About 7th edition i might agree but now we are in 8th and many players bought things never played in 7th (who said 6 stormravens now unplayable). Remember GW is a corporation which work for PROFIT, keep in mind that, always.
PS: and i wont defend GW cause they ruin the game i liked a lot with 6th and 7th edition but i also cant defend players so blind to be fooled by them.

I understand what you're saying, but I also think it's a bit much to expect players to foresee nerfs before they happen or to expect GW to allow one thing for 3 editions and then suddenly change their mind halfway through the edition. A lot of people started the game in 6th, 7th, and 8th, so it's not improbable they weren't able to see this coming.

Again, I don't think you'll find a stronger proponent of the rule of three than I am, but it's still possible to have some empathy for players affected and encourage GW to avoid these situations in the first place.

sometimes i agree might be a bit much... but wont understand 7 flyrants will be nerferd or 9 pcb will be as well for me is pure blindness.
As i said above i wont defend Gw, that i consider a crappy corporation just aiming at profit, but again i think players need to be more careful now, avoid to buy things clearly out of line cause the chance it will be nerfed is high, follow tournament results to try at least get a idea what could be nerfed, imho. Then of course everyone do what want with own money.