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.

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.

ITC is mostly US though. Is there more 40k players in US or europe though? Whom GW should cater? Should they try to balance over unofficial house rules mostly for US crowd and screw balance in the official format used in europe?

Since ITC is bunch of house rules fixing balance errors there is the work of those house rule creators. Not GW. ITC made the problem, ITC fix it rather than expect GW to fix it screwing balance for non-ITC players.

If army build A is tabling army build B in a turn and a half every game is that the fault of the mission? Could there be balance changes that might be required for both Chapter Approved missions and ITC missions?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
None of this matters regardless.

This data applies to a homebrew mission set and cannot be used to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules.

Are we trying to determine the balance of the game under the latest official rules or the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set?

Believe it or not some people care about the balance of the game under a homebrew mission set. Possibly even enough of them that they represent a market block GW could pay attention to.

ITC is mostly US though. Is there more 40k players in US or europe though? Whom GW should cater? Should they try to balance over unofficial house rules mostly for US crowd and screw balance in the official format used in europe?

Since ITC is bunch of house rules fixing balance errors there is the work of those house rule creators. Not GW. ITC made the problem, ITC fix it rather than expect GW to fix it screwing balance for non-ITC players.

If army build A is tabling army build B in a turn and a half every game is that the fault of the mission? Could there be balance changes that might be required for both Chapter Approved missions and ITC missions?

Like maybe the army doing the tabling?

Hello sm? (Especially you iron hands).

GW should balance 40K for it to stand up in a variety of mission sets. The fact that GW reps usually attend the LVO and take note of how armies perform let's you know about their thoughts regarding balance and ITC.

The problem is bloat tbh. You have lot of different factions with hundreds of datasheets. You then add on FW datasheets/rules, campaign supplements with additional rules, etc, and the whole thing just goes off the rails. They are always chasing balance but will never keep up. There will always be something broken. It was Ynnari, then Castellan/soup, Chaos soup interaction, now marines.

You then have to address what is broken. I have a Ravenguard force, is my army broken if I don't take a single Centurion in my army and rely mostly on vanguard marines? So should Ravenguard get a full nerf, or just elements that make it OP? Same with IH, same with Imp Fists.

GW right now are just spinning plates, but overall, the game is in a pretty decent state. It looks bad right now because the most popular faction is also now the most pwerful....that's going to make results really skewed. If harlequins were the best army, you wouldn't see it dominate too much because they are not highly collected.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.

GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

I would not consider 40k balanced. Not even close. The question is whether itc is helping with that or not.

 Ishagu wrote:
...GW have balanced the game now...

How many entire Codexes are functionally unplayable right now? Would you take mono-Grey Knights to a tournament? Mono-Deathwatch? Mono-Harlequins? Mono-Daemons?

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.

GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

I agree that the ca2019 missions are far superior to ITC. But if you actually think the game is balanced with stuff like iron hands running around you may need drug counseling.

Crack kills.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
...GW have balanced the game now...

How many entire Codexes are functionally unplayable right now? Would you take mono-Grey Knights to a tournament? Mono-Deathwatch? Mono-Harlequins? Mono-Daemons?

to be fair, I think GKs are going to do well with their new update. Some people are playing harlequins well in the marine meta. Deathwatch, not sure about and I have zero clue on Dameons but I feel most chaos armies need to soup to survive. .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.

GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

I agree that the ca2019 missions are far superior to ITC. But if you actually think the game is balanced with stuff like iron hands running around you may need drug counseling.

Crack kills.

I think his point is that we are not using good data to support IH dominance. what's needed is a strong set of data using GW's missions and no magic boxes to see how armies fare. Personally, I think the LVO winning list would dominate in GW missions too, but that is my assumption and has no data to back it up. We need data, not assumptions.

After years of "Nerf ALL CWE because Alaitoc", all this "Don't nerf Marines because IH" is delicious.

Not that I disagree; if only IH is OP and UM is bad, then IH should be nerfed, not Marines.

As for UM and their current standing; it's heavily supported that the meta lost a lot of UM lists and gained a lot of IH lists when the FOTM Chapter went from UM to IH.

We know that there's a fairly large base among popular factions who want to play their subfaction regardless of competitiveness. We know they perform worse, on average, unless their subfaction happens to be FOTM (and often perform l worse then, too, because they skew heavily towards what-I-want-to-field lists over what-will-do-well lists). We know the swing from UM to IH included most of the UM players who are *not* in that group.

What happens to the performance of a group if membership of the group is gutted, but the lower-performing members are less impacted than others? The performance goes down.

As such, while the data doesn't prove that the former-FOTM subfactions performance isn't negatively effected by there being a different subfaction that is the FOTM, there's certainly good reason to believe it is.

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

I think i just found my new sig.

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.

GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

Could you provide a link to the data you are using to make these claims. My google fu is failing me and I can't find any events that are not using ITC.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

I think i just found my new sig.

you heard it from the marine player: The game is officially 100% fine, balanced, and we all need to not, definitely DONT send any complaints or suggestions to GW unless this internet person personally approves of it.

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

You are seriously the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Have you considering being a subject in a study on the subject?

The Salt Mine wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People can talk all they want about the ITC meta as long as that conversation remains in the context of it being a 3rd party homebrew ruleset that GW are not responsible for.

Who the does this guy think he is? Buddy, you are not the arbiter of what can and can't be discussed.

If GW had balanced their game to begin with we wouldn't need ITC or "home brew" rules, how about they don't balance the game for ITC, just balance it for something, anything, i'd be happy with better narrative missions.

GW have balanced the game now.

We did need ITC rules. We no longer do.

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

Could you provide a link to the data you are using to make these claims. My google fu is failing me and I can't find any events that are not using ITC.

The only "official" event recently was the invitational at the end of the year. "Iron Hands didn't win they aren't broken". they only invited two Space Marine players.

LVO - the event so unofficial GW showcases new products here, every year!

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

I think i just found my new sig.

Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

I think i just found my new sig.

Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.

Tell that to GSC and their 55 point troops.

No TO should be enforcing that value.

Martel732 wrote:
No TO should be enforcing that value.

So should TOs enforce the Ogryn increase? What about the Thunder Hammer one? Why can't we trust GW's printed rules they charge money for?

I think the reasonableness standard should apply.

We can't trust GW because they are incompetent in the rules department. They really should outsource the rules and stick to plastic.

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

I think i just found my new sig.

Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.

Yea, listen - I agree with your optimism about them getting things right. I remain unconvinced CA solves the larger issues and that they have made the necessary corrections to stop process failures. The CA FAQ and March Update should be hopefully be stabilizing.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

What are you talking about? GW has been running Grand Tournaments and the attendees for the final were selected based on performance in previous events.

 Crimson wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

If you want to remain in a 3rd party, unofficial, home-brew meta you go right ahead. Just don't complain about the game balance or the official rules. You aren't using them!

What are you talking about? GW has been running Grand Tournaments and the attendees for the final were selected based on performance in previous events.

I didn't say that Xenomancer.

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW have balanced the game now.

I think i just found my new sig.

Sorry, let me re-phrase.

GW are actively balancing the game, not entirely successfully of course. Between FAQs, updates and Chapter Approved releases they are balancing units up and down.

Yea, listen - I agree with your optimism about them getting things right. I remain unconvinced CA solves the larger issues and that they have made the necessary corrections to stop process failures. The CA FAQ and March Update should be hopefully be stabilizing.

So will gw wait for the March update to release the ca faq? That's a long time to leave a flawed product uncorrected. Surely they'll release the faq sooner.

To be honest the errors in the CA point adjustments should have been resolved by now, I'm not sure why the CA Errata/FAQ has taken so long

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

So will gw wait for the March update to release the ca faq? That's a long time to leave a flawed product uncorrected. Surely they'll release the faq sooner.

impossible to know at this point. It could be tomorrow or even post Adepticon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.

Since I am ignorant of this process - can people not change armies? When were the prior GTs held?

 Crimson wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Also, it's not a "Grand Tournament" if it's invite only, that's an Invitational by its very definition.

When at least a third of all attendees are SMs, and the top game is Iron Hands vs Raven Guard - only inviting two SM players isn't representative of jack

The invitations are based on performance in the GTs. So there weren't more marines because they didn't do well enough in GTs.

Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If army build A is tabling army build B in a turn and a half every game is that the fault of the mission? Could there be balance changes that might be required for both Chapter Approved missions and ITC missions?

Then when build A takes 6 turns to table build C and loses badly on VP the player of build A has to rethink their list choice or just be playing for 2nd place all the time. Which is exactly how my last tournament using CA19 missions went with the ultra-brutal Iron Hands list.

We will see this weekend if he is back and if so if he has put some more scoring presence in his list at the cost of losing some of that firepower. If he brings build A again he will be trying for 2nd place again because I don't bring lists he can table fast enough to stop me winning.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't know how long the tournament' season' was and how exactly this worked. I have to say that it would help things if GW did better job with reporting their tournament data. I tried to research this and it is pretty confusing.

 Crimson wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

Your missing my point, it's not representative of the meta (or the "balance" of the game) if they broke the game a month before hand and just tossed out invites to the "best players of the year".

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't know how long the tournament' season' was and how exactly this worked. I have to say that it would help things if GW did better job with reporting their tournament data. I tried to research this and it is pretty confusing.

It would help with a LOT of things if gw was better at sharing information. (See ca2019 faq).