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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 auticus wrote:
So we have more actual tangible proof that they dont use points to balance the game.

But people will dryhump that idea into oblivion that the points bring balance so everything is fine just git gud.

And continue sending GW forklifts loaded down with crates of cash. To continue buying in.

If you study game design in enough detail you will recognize that point systems are a mostly illusory construct to begin with and don't really function the way people seem to think they do (unfortunately, that sometimes includes game designers too). No game - at least none that I know of - ever really use points in an objective, quantifiable, qualifiable, scientific manner that is directly correlated to a formula which accurately predicts and indicates a units on-table performance capabilities - the ability to objectively calculate such a thing simply does not exist because any such attempt at calculating something like that would be subject to the biases of the person trying to determine how the formula should be weighted in order to account for intangible factors. Points are *always* used to "mold" or "train" the way players build an army, with the idea being that once the army is built to a standard it should have a hopefully 50/50 shot against any other army built to the same standards.

Hrm, I'd say it's probably more because Points are generally how most tabletop miniatures games work, in some form or fashion, much moreso than a mechanic like PL, and that's just the accepted norm for the genre, and, if executed correctly (which GW clearly did not), should offer better and more granular balance. That's why there's a preference towards it, not just because of tournament tryhards. That group definitely exerts its own pressure, but even if they disappeared tomorrow, Points would almost certainly still remain the overwhelmingly preferred option I'd be willing to bet.

Case in point for people misunderstanding how points work. I mean, first off PL *are* points, its a different points system sure, but points are points regardless of what you call them and there are other games out there that have points systems that function in a manner similar to PL. The idea that points will provide better and more granular balance "if executed correctly" is largely a misunderstanding of what points are used for. Points don't actually exist to drive balance directly, they exist to constrain and limit listbuilding - its through those constraints that something resembling "balance" is hopefully found, largely by limiting the amount of one thing or another that you are able to field and take relative to what your opponent is able to do using the same system. Points are always 100% about "what should this army look like", thats why almost universally from one game to another that utilizes points systems, 2 units in 2 different factions with similar capabilities are often priced differently. And the truth of the matter is that "balance" doesn't really exist either, only the perception of it - the reality is that when a community at large complains that something is unbalanced, what is usually happening is that the communities perception of balance is differing from the games creators, because both parties have different expectations of how the game should be played and what the resulting balance should look like.

Now, mind you, that doesn't mean that all games are equally well-balanced, some games go to greater lengths to try to get closer to that 50/50 win rate - Warmachine is a good example of a game that really tries hard to chase balance in this way - but the points aren't really being used to control balance directly, thats really what the themes are for, the points simply exist to limit how many things you can take within that theme. In 40ks case, the GW design studio prioritizes the narrative over competitive balance, its points adjustments are less focused on the mythical 50/50 win rate than they are on simply ensuring that the fieldable armies look like an army that they could actually imagine taking the field of battle in the 41st millennium.

You can spout as much erudite nonsense as you want, that doesn't make a dude with a flamer and a dude with a plasma gun worth the same.

That would be relevant if it mattered. It doesn't. Thats the point (excuse the pun). The "actual" balance here is not achieved through their points costs being equivalent or differing, its achieved - theoretically (though thissomewhat ceased to be a relevant concept when they abandoned gets hot in favor of supercharging) - through the fact that Flamers are useful against things that Plasma Guns are not, and vice versa, as well as - ideally - there being other practical limitations on your ability to take one in greater quantity than the other (a limitation that largely no longer exists in most armies as a result of specialist detachments as well as the proliferation of weapon options in unis across the board).

No, it's not, points are always 100% about making more choices valid, about making units with better stats not an auto-include over units with poorer stats. Having certain types of units be overcosted because you think the faction should be bad at fielding that type of unit is terrible miniature game design. Within 40k an option is balanced if its pts are both low enough to warrant its inclusion in some lists without being so low that its inclusion is near mandatory. Just because the game designers want the game to be unbalanced does not mean that the game is balanced when it is unbalanced in the manner in which the game designers would like the game to be unbalanced. You would not call a scale balanced if it weighed a seller's wares twice as much as the weight put on the other side, even if the scale was constructed by the seller to weigh the wares twice as much as the weight on the other side. It is an unbalanced scale and the seller is a fraud in the same manner that GW game designers appear to be frauds when it comes to the most recent pts update. When it is viable people will build fluffy lists, it is entirely on GW that they don't utilize the generous 40k playtesters to make a game where people can build whatever list they please and have fun against a majority of opponents.

You're like 80% accurate here.

"making units with better stats not an auto-include over units with poorer stats" - This is accurate, its part of the "constraints" that points put on listbuilding.

"Having certain types of units be overcosted because you think the faction should be bad at fielding that type of unit is terrible miniature game design." - This is how just about every points-based miniature game *IS* designed.

"Within 40k an option is balanced if its pts are both low enough to warrant its inclusion in some lists without being so low that its inclusion is near mandatory" - This is off, what you're describing isn't "balance", its "viability".

"Just because the game designers want the game to be unbalanced does not mean that the game is balanced when it is unbalanced in the manner in which the game designers would like the game to be unbalanced." - Simply flat out wrong (I think, you used the word balanced and unbalanced so many times in so short a span that I'm not entirely sure I fully understood your point, thats more of a me thing than a you thing). The game - EVERY game - is balanced around an existant meta for a reason. The meta changes when the developers of a game decide that the existant meta is not in keeping with their vision for how the game *should* be played, the meta stays the same when its reinforced beause the developers consider the existant meta accurate to how the game was meant to be played as part of its design.

Every game is designed with a manner in which it was intended to be played and experienced, sometimes (often) the mechanics (and sometimes points systems) lead to surprises and result in a different experience than what was originally intended - sometimes the developers steer into that because they like that better than what they invisioned, and sometimes they feth with things in order to get it truer to their play concept. Just because the mechanics are open-ended enough to allow for a certain way of play, doesn't mean that the designers intended for that way of play to be effective or balanced against their intent - i.e. just because the game mechanics allow me to take 2000 points of nothing but Grots with a single warboss, doesn't mean that the designers intended for me to have a chance of winning with a list built that way - in fact, its entirely possible that that is a playstyle they not only didn't intend, but *don't* want to encourage in any way, shape or form for a multitude of reasons.

Moreover, every faction is *built* to play in a certain way, just because they can be played in ways that weren't intended doesn't mean the developers necessarily want that way of play to be encouraged because its not in keeping with the concept of "faction identity" etc. etc. etc.

In other words, inherently speaking, every game is built and designed to be balanced around a specific (sometimes/often multiple) "axis of play" - this is essentially what the developers consider balanced. Anything outside/askew to that axis might or might not be balanced, often times it isn't - and thats okay, because the developers don't intend for that to be balanced, and don't care if it is or isn't unless the unbalance of that axis interferes with the balance of the intended axis/axes. Put in more direct terms - games are intentionally designed to be unbalanced in certain directions in order to produce a desired play experience. If that unbalance interferes with your enjoyment of the game, sometimes the problem isn't the game - its you.

"You would not call a scale balanced if it weighed a seller's wares twice as much as the weight put on the other side, even if the scale was constructed by the seller to weigh the wares twice as much as the weight on the other side. " - No, but we're not talking about a scale, over-simplification of the problem does not mean that an argument is logically sound. Even within the definition of what you accept as "balanced" you will find situations where the scale is not balanced - but you accept that "balance" because it fits within your perception of how the game "should" be played. If you can accept that, then you can also accept the idea that the devs likewise have a perception of how the game "should" be played, and sometimes those perceptions don't entirely align.

I've sat in it. With one caveat... point system CAN be used to BETTER enforce balance.

This I don't deny, I think I alluded to it somewhere in my post even if I didn't outright state it.

I did this trio of videos for the conquest player base on how i calculate stats for my own machine learning output (for conquest)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX93AINW8gA&list=PLe9ZjKe25oMNH6q3_XU0QxkBt2mEm_F1y&index=5

Cool, Ill have a watch when I get home!

Fact of the matter is that with the start of a new edition, the points document should have been a day-one PDF release. None of this munitorium manual bull gak, especially not after such a short time between this and CA19.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, I'd say it's probably more because Points are generally how most tabletop miniatures games work, in some form or fashion, much moreso than a mechanic like PL, and that's just the accepted norm for the genre, and, if executed correctly (which GW clearly did not), should offer better and more granular balance.

Kan knows this. And he knows that points have been part of 40k almost since its inception. But he's got it into his head that points are something that only the WAAC tournament crowd want/use.

Who the hell knows why?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Only if you've got an obsessive need to have points now, now, now!

Obsessive need? You mean a general requirement to have an intrinsic part of the game that everyone's been using for decades.

I demand to see the posts complaining about "too balanced too boring and list building does not matter"

Knowing you how I know you, all of the posts in the world being posted here right now would illicit a countering moving of the goal posts lol. Too much balance is boring has been said many times in the aos forums and too much balance makes list building not matter as a complaint was said in the azyr comp facebook group when that was a thing in 2015 and 2016. it was the #1 complaint about azyr comp, that it was too balanced and therefore boring and it made listbuilding not matter.

Man, after reading these posts I feel bad for still keeping up with 40k... balance is one of the most important things a game should strive for (as, you know, if a faction always gets trounced, very few people will still play with it - reducing faction diversity)!

 Vector Strike wrote:
Man, after reading these posts I feel bad for still keeping up with 40k... balance is one of the most important things a game should strive for (as, you know, if a faction always gets trounced, very few people will still play with it - reducing faction diversity)!

You shouldn't feel bad. This is mostly the usual axes being ground, nothing to do with actually playing the game.

 bullyboy wrote:
Armies that aren't really armies.....Corsairs and R+H

I was hoping they get Squated or updated. Actually Corsairs are not squated yet technically. They have new points and in the FW book.

Considering that within 5 minutes of seeing leaks, people have usually hashed out the most broken combos and units, I would suggest that balancing isn't some kind of arcane magic. Start with outliers and massage.

Drastic point readjustments or curve changes mid-cycle with the same mechanics really aren't the way to go about this. This was effectively a reset and it will take months of hard knocks before they figure out their mistakes.

It would have been better for them to just massage existing 8th ed points values into a better place, using Chapter Approved as a starting point along with tournament research.

I'm beginning to think the actual playtesting was useless considering both the rules output and the points adjustments.

One obvious intra-Codex example that is just inexcusably stupid was Power Klaw = Killsaw. This was a faceroll job. There's no need to defend it. You'll see points values dramatically seesaw just like prior editions of Chapter Approved.

 Castozor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Funny, I seem to remember people were saying all through 8th that GW had no interest in competitive balance and never will.

I mean you could have listened to us when we said that GW cares far more about casual and thematic balance but what do we know. We're just "filthy casuals".

I can get behind that philosophy but as always GW took the hamfisted approach to balance and fluff. You want people to take Boyz and CSM? Make them worth fielding at whatever point value they are at, don't just nerf cultists and grots into being unusable. Might as well just cut those units out of the codex while you are at it then. The way GW does it now pleases neither competitive nor fluffy players.

I can't speak to Boyz, but CSM are where they are because they mirror a unit (the SM tactical squad) that GW is consciously trying to shuffle into obsolescence. You can't improve CSM without also improving tacticals, but then people might take them over primaris.

WOW. so after reading 3 pages of vitriol, I can only offer this:

I enjoy my hobby, I'm sorry the community on Dakka doesn't. I don't care if you are the best game designer in the world or the filthiest of filthy casuals, it feels like no matter what anyone does, it will never be good enough for this crowd.

I'm unapologetic about the fact that I like the game. Hopefully, when some of you get to play a game or two, you will enjoy it too.

Seabass wrote:
WOW. so after reading 3 pages of vitriol, I can only offer this:

I enjoy my hobby, I'm sorry the community on Dakka doesn't. I don't care if you are the best game designer in the world or the filthiest of filthy casuals, it feels like no matter what anyone does, it will never be good enough for this crowd.

I'm unapologetic about the fact that I like the game. Hopefully, when some of you get to play a game or two, you will enjoy it too.

????

I dont think we read the same thread?

 Carnikang wrote:
I dont think we read the same thread?

Or he doesn't know what "vitriol" means. *shrugs*

Or he's someone very sensitive to people criticizing anything that he enjoys. Which is common these days.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Funny, I seem to remember people were saying all through 8th that GW had no interest in competitive balance and never will.

I mean you could have listened to us when we said that GW cares far more about casual and thematic balance but what do we know. We're just "filthy casuals".

I can get behind that philosophy but as always GW took the hamfisted approach to balance and fluff. You want people to take Boyz and CSM? Make them worth fielding at whatever point value they are at, don't just nerf cultists and grots into being unusable. Might as well just cut those units out of the codex while you are at it then. The way GW does it now pleases neither competitive nor fluffy players.

I can't speak to Boyz, but CSM are where they are because they mirror a unit (the SM tactical squad) that GW is consciously trying to shuffle into obsolescence. You can't improve CSM without also improving tacticals, but then people might take them over primaris.

Why? If gw wants to get rid of tacticals but keep csm why should they continue to tie the two together? If they are set on getting rid of classic marines but keeping csm then there should be no problem changing csm in order to make them a better option. Or just give csm another troops choice: Chosen.

I was actually mulling it over, and I can honestly buy into the idea that GW sat down and adjusted points up to rebalance stuff inside of each codex to better fit what they feel that codex should "feel" like on the table.

The issue is that that feeling needs to be balanced against how other armies feel. I'm hoping things won't go down in points from here, but go up as needed, while new rules are introduced to make that premium some armies are paying actually feel worth it.

For example: bonus attacks for horde units for every 10 models after the first 10.

I love how people disagree with what they have to say and all of a sudden they're now shillin' for GW.

Dakka, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Lemondish wrote:
I love how people disagree with what they have to say and all of a sudden they're now shillin' for GW.

Dakka, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Hypocrisy isn't a good look.

It's always curious to me the way the reflexively positive people here tend to actually be angrier and more prone to throwing around insults than the more negative posters.

Carnikang wrote:

Seabass wrote:
WOW. so after reading 3 pages of vitriol, I can only offer this:

I enjoy my hobby, I'm sorry the community on Dakka doesn't. I don't care if you are the best game designer in the world or the filthiest of filthy casuals, it feels like no matter what anyone does, it will never be good enough for this crowd.

I'm unapologetic about the fact that I like the game. Hopefully, when some of you get to play a game or two, you will enjoy it too.

????

I dont think we read the same thread?

No, I am pretty sure we read the same 3 pages. If it's not talking about how bad the changes are, it's questioning the competence or motivations if the playtester that was on "The Art of War".

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
I dont think we read the same thread?

Or he doesn't know what "vitriol" means. *shrugs*

The statements questioning the integrity of the people playtesting, or the opposite where the playtesters wanted GW to change or voiced concern about the new points costs, all seemed like they were crude and bitter criticism, which is the definition of vitriol.

auticus wrote:Or he's someone very sensitive to people criticizing anything that he enjoys. Which is common these days.

Not so much, though that is true to an extent. I think the game is made better by people focusing on what is good, and then working with that. That's not to say we shouldn't discuss or develope reasoned argument about how it could be better, but as I've said before, this feels way beyond that. So much so that it read as if a few posts from people were attacking the playtesters for defending the points changes. That feels like an unhealthy place to be.

I truly hope many of you get to play a few games and rediscover your enjoyment of the game. I want the community to at least enjoy their hobby, it's one of the reasons why I'm here, is to talk about the common thread that is Warhammer, but this isn't that, and I hope it lifts a little when people can go back to enjoying the game with their friends.

Lemondish wrote:
I love how people disagree with what they have to say and all of a sudden they're now shillin' for GW.

Dakka, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Dude, I'm not one to call people shills, but I can't think of a behavior more deserving of that label than rejecting completely legitimate complaints (that GW overhauled points without taking into account their most recent balance pass, and then did no changes whatsoever from playtesting) and saying 'it feels like no matter what anyone does, it will never be good enough for this crowd'.

I mean, the bar people are holding GW to is not exactly high here.

Lemondish wrote:
Dakka, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Who is this "Dakka" you speak of?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Dakka, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Who is this "Dakka" you speak of?

I don't know, but I hear the Orks really like him.

I think one of the big issues GW has with Points here for there goal is it would need for GW to understand the faction fantasy they are setting up.
Which is all over the place, and the game is mostly set up to flatten everything to facilitate poor Faction design as it gets worse at times.
When they turn around and use points as there way to make Factions look as they feel they should its Just kinda stupid.
And i not sure Players think of there faction fantasy as just being shot up since nothing they can really achieve with building an fluffy list can stand up in even mild competitive play.

chaos0xomega wrote:
"Having certain types of units be overcosted because you think the faction should be bad at fielding that type of unit is terrible miniature game design." - This is how just about every points-based miniature game *IS* designed.

That's not how 40k has been pointed for many years, most of it has been random and then a chunk of it has been based on what GW has wanted to sell. GW has not been able to predict what their pts changes would do for the most part, if they did they would not need to send game designers to tournaments to watch what armies are being used and how the game is being played and we would not have seen some of the lists we have seen over the years, I don't believe Bark Star was something GW intended for example, but it existed in 7th for a long time before it was used competitively and it did not see any nerfs.

"Within 40k an option is balanced if its pts are both low enough to warrant its inclusion in some lists without being so low that its inclusion is near mandatory" - This is off, what you're describing isn't "balance", its "viability".

Same difference.

Wikipedia wrote:In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers.

In other words, balance is the practice of tuning pts with the goal of preventing any units from being unviable. From where does your view that balance is when the game is being played as intended come from?

chaos0xomega wrote:
"Just because the game designers want the game to be unbalanced does not mean that the game is balanced when it is unbalanced in the manner in which the game designers would like the game to be unbalanced." - Simply flat out wrong (I think, you used the word balanced and unbalanced so many times in so short a span that I'm not entirely sure I fully understood your point, thats more of a me thing than a you thing). The game - EVERY game - is balanced around an existant meta for a reason. The meta changes when the developers of a game decide that the existant meta is not in keeping with their vision for how the game *should* be played, the meta stays the same when its reinforced beause the developers consider the existant meta accurate to how the game was meant to be played as part of its design.

Every game is designed with a manner in which it was intended to be played and experienced, sometimes (often) the mechanics (and sometimes points systems) lead to surprises and result in a different experience than what was originally intended - sometimes the developers steer into that because they like that better than what they invisioned, and sometimes they feth with things in order to get it truer to their play concept. Just because the mechanics are open-ended enough to allow for a certain way of play, doesn't mean that the designers intended for that way of play to be effective or balanced against their intent - i.e. just because the game mechanics allow me to take 2000 points of nothing but Grots with a single warboss, doesn't mean that the designers intended for me to have a chance of winning with a list built that way - in fact, its entirely possible that that is a playstyle they not only didn't intend, but *don't* want to encourage in any way, shape or form for a multitude of reasons.

Moreover, every faction is *built* to play in a certain way, just because they can be played in ways that weren't intended doesn't mean the developers necessarily want that way of play to be encouraged because its not in keeping with the concept of "faction identity" etc. etc. etc.

In other words, inherently speaking, every game is built and designed to be balanced around a specific (sometimes/often multiple) "axis of play" - this is essentially what the developers consider balanced. Anything outside/askew to that axis might or might not be balanced, often times it isn't - and thats okay, because the developers don't intend for that to be balanced, and don't care if it is or isn't unless the unbalance of that axis interferes with the balance of the intended axis/axes. Put in more direct terms - games are intentionally designed to be unbalanced in certain directions in order to produce a desired play experience. If that unbalance interferes with your enjoyment of the game, sometimes the problem isn't the game - its you.

Bad communication on my part, I hope this post clarifies my feelings on the subject. Game developers ensuring no emergent gameplay takes place within army building may be a thing, but it has nothing to do with any definition of balance other than the few I have seen in this thread. I'm just an amateur who has read some articles online and I have a bad memory so maybe I have forgotten that I've come across your definition of balance previously.

"You would not call a scale balanced if it weighed a seller's wares twice as much as the weight put on the other side, even if the scale was constructed by the seller to weigh the wares twice as much as the weight on the other side. " - No, but we're not talking about a scale, over-simplification of the problem does not mean that an argument is logically sound. Even within the definition of what you accept as "balanced" you will find situations where the scale is not balanced - but you accept that "balance" because it fits within your perception of how the game "should" be played. If you can accept that, then you can also accept the idea that the devs likewise have a perception of how the game "should" be played, and sometimes those perceptions don't entirely align.

I don't accept any options being must-have or terrible, I am a balance absolutist. I might run a list despite it being imbalanced, but I don't like the fact that it is imbalanced. I had some problems with some forms of gameplay in 8th and I thought GW should deal with them, but always at a rules level, not by waving around the pts hammer. Take something like blocking the second floor of a building, thereby preventing melee units from engaging you, I did not like this type of gameplay, so I like that GW has made it so you can fight up to 5" upwards. I also don't like it when the game is too killy, that does not mean I want glass cannon units to be overcosted so most people just take tanky units and the game stops being too killy, it means I want GW to change the rules of the game to be less killy, by introducing rules like Prepared Positions, the new -1 to hit for some types of terrain, nerfing rules that make the game into rocket tag like the Chapter Master Stratagem and various Shoot Twice and Shoot Harder Stratagems.

I want Monoliths and Warriors to be viable, those are my pet units, but that should not come at the cost of Deathmarks, Ghost Arks or Immortals. I will accept some mild imbalance yes, not because I like that imbalance but because it's a fact of list diversity and the building of a meta that perfect imbalance is the best you can hope for, that every unit/weapon has a role in some cases, throwing balance to the wolves to make the game play as intended is terrible IMO. It is more important to me that some units be viable than others, but ideally every unit is viable.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Funny, I seem to remember people were saying all through 8th that GW had no interest in competitive balance and never will.

I mean you could have listened to us when we said that GW cares far more about casual and thematic balance but what do we know. We're just "filthy casuals".

We just need to scream louder to drown out the people that want randomly imbalanced formats to explore and the people that think balance is a bad thing because it might mean people play the game how they want to play rather than how GW wants them to, as if the hamfisted Chapter Tactics rules weren't enough already. I'm just being tongue-in-cheek, I don't mind narrative and power level players, Warhammer is for everyone, I just want my preferences to be catered to like everyone else. I think it's bad form to spit on the people that want GW to produce a reasonably balanced set of pts after we got dunked on by GW delivering a bad product, just like it'd be poor form to hate on Orks or Marines for getting a terrible sculpt. I know GW can improve balance because the Necron pts got more and more balanced with every CA, not just in a way that I could field my pet units, but in a way that I could field any Necron unit and not feel too bad about it. I could give my HQs any weapon and feel good about it and GW has seemingly thrown it away. It will be at least four years before the edition is balanced because the first shot at balancing it seems to be as good as no shot at all. It will probably be less than four years before a new edition come out, so my only hope is that the codexes are truly balanced as some playtesters have said and that we'll have balance in two years, that's still a criminally long time to wait and a criminal number of times GW are going to keep charging for pts updates just because they refused to make the game as balanced as possible at the start of 9th.

 auticus wrote:

I demand to see the posts complaining about "too balanced too boring and list building does not matter"

Knowing you how I know you, all of the posts in the world being posted here right now would illicit a countering moving of the goal posts lol. Too much balance is boring has been said many times in the aos forums and too much balance makes list building not matter as a complaint was said in the azyr comp facebook group when that was a thing in 2015 and 2016. it was the #1 complaint about azyr comp, that it was too balanced and therefore boring and it made listbuilding not matter.

I will admit I wasn't super excited about CA19 for Necrons because it was more internally balanced than ever, so I wasn't trying to break the game as much or find out what worked because most things were just pretty good. What I instead got was a good amount of fun regardless of which list I brought. That being said I would love to see what you are talking about, I couldn't find any Azyr groups on Facebook so I could not check for myself, have they been taken down?

I stopped reading this thread around page 2, too many walls of text.

Just one word of advice.
Don't rush your opinion of the new points.
Look at something like this, i.e. real data https://youtu.be/84luazM84U4
Looking at the new points, everyone was sure that Drukhary were done, that they were screwed by the new points and so on. Yet, it looks like they are doing great.

This is just an example obviously, but the point is that "We could spot the broken and trash things in 5 minutes" is just armchairing at its best.

Spoletta wrote:
I stopped reading this thread around page 2, too many walls of text.

Just one word of advice.
Don't rush your opinion of the new points.
Look at something like this, i.e. real data https://youtu.be/84luazM84U4
Looking at the new points, everyone was sure that Drukhary were done, that they were screwed by the new points and so on. Yet, it looks like they are doing great.

This is just an example obviously, but the point is that "We could spot the broken and trash things in 5 minutes" is just armchairing at its best.

One of the best Drukhari players in the world with a relatively large amount of 9th knowledge and experience gets second at a one-day RTT, sorry I don't find this to be amazing, people occasionally made Dark Eldar work in 7th. Skari cannot be too negative, his job is literally making Drukhari work and making others believe he can help them make it work, screaming and crying at GW won't bring him any income, this is why I'm taking what he's saying with a grain of salt. He also said that he'll move to a 9-Talos build because those were hit relatively lightly taking 9th rules changes into account. Him saying that he thinks taking a unit of 5 Kabalite Warriors will be part of his competitive list does not mean that the pts increase was not outrageous. Kabalite Venomspam is dead.

Did you watch that video? Skari is a good player, almost certainly better than the people he was playing against. And it's not like BE or Necrons are exactly what everybody's talking about. He lost to the more meta faction he came up against.

You can't draw conclusions from three games anyway, but a good player going 2-1 beating two other lower-tier armies and losing to the higher-tier one is hardly a sign that Drukhari are fine.

I agree completely with Vict0988 and yukishiro1.

You know what Skari saying that he'll take a unit of 5 Kabalite Warriors as part of his competitive list means?

'I will take the minimum number of Kab Warriors I possibly can, in order to unlock a Kabalite Patrol, so I can take Ravagers'

It's not exactly a vote of confidence.

So something I want to remind people is that we should be disagreeing with the statements made by the playtesters, not attacking them.

It's fine to disagree with people, but once we start slapping labels on them like "shills" we're not addressing their points, we're just acting in bad faith.

I personally buy the theory because GW has a track record in the past of balancing books internally, but rarely balancing them exterally. Obviously they did a lot of external balancing in 8th, but there is the chance that the devs feel that the factions were no longer balanced internally like they should be, leading to a rough pass to adjust things both for internal balance, and perhaps for the missions, but left external balance alone as the shifting meta from the changes to the game already threw that out of whack and they want more info before they adjust those points.

As such we could see some massive points shifts across the game as they push to keep internal balance the same but drastically rework things relative to each other.

Or we could be going back to a 3rd to 5th design philosophy where internal balance is the main focus to keep the faction "feeling" correct and external balance is largely ignored.

Honestly, I'm not really sure amd unless GW starts communicating more about why they make the changes they do, all we can do is make guesses at what they're doing and why.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's always curious to me the way the reflexively positive people here tend to actually be angrier and more prone to throwing around insults than the more negative posters.

The negative posters are disgruntled with GW. The positive people are angry at the negative posters for being disgruntled. GW isn’t here on Dakka to be disgruntled at.

Seabass wrote:
WOW. so after reading 3 pages of vitriol, I can only offer this:

I enjoy my hobby, I'm sorry the community on Dakka doesn't. I don't care if you are the best game designer in the world or the filthiest of filthy casuals, it feels like no matter what anyone does, it will never be good enough for this crowd.

I'm unapologetic about the fact that I like the game. Hopefully, when some of you get to play a game or two, you will enjoy it too.

I mean the day I feel like not an idiot for trying to put chaos space marines in a chaos space marines list, not have my bike lord in a terrible position on legends while the loyalist keep their equivalents updated, and mounted hq’s gutted from my codex, none of which I felt was a particularly stiff order, , I’ll be satisfied. Due to COVID 19 I missed the prime time for that from CA19...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That’s me being selfish though we’ve all lost something. Except space marines XD

yukishiro1 wrote:
Did you watch that video? Skari is a good player, almost certainly better than the people he was playing against. And it's not like BE or Necrons are exactly what everybody's talking about. He lost to the more meta faction he came up against.

You can't draw conclusions from three games anyway, but a good player going 2-1 beating two other lower-tier armies and losing to the higher-tier one is hardly a sign that Drukhari are fine.

BE?
Low tier?

Man did you see the video at all?

That was a top tier IH list, and it got competely crushed, both on points AND on kills.

Also important to note that he made it there thanks to melee, not thanks to shooting.