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.

IG obviously needs to be nerfed.

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I think the Sisters thing is a bit skewed. The players that have reported Sisters games thus far are quite veteran.

Yeah, we need a couple of people with their index to proxy a SoB army for a few battles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
IG obviously needs to be nerfed.

Or the other armies need their snowflake options and strats back via codex updates (assuming the IG aren't going ham again with that).

Or the other armies need their snowflake options and strats back via codex updates (assuming the IG aren't going ham again with that).

I don't like this solution, making everything as powerful as the most powerful thing is how you get power creep.

The trouble with nerfs is that it feels bad to have bought and painted a unit, only for it to then be worse than it was before.

Necrons vs Thousand Sons:Thousand Sons Win

My 3 games so far:

Blood Angels vs Space Marines - Draw
Orks vs Tyranids - Orks win
Imperial Guard vs Tyranids - Tyranids win

I can add some more results from 3 games last night.

Battle Sisters vs Chaos Marines: Battle Sisters Win

Space Marines vs Orks: Space Marines Win

Blood Angels vs Chaos Marines: Chaos Marines Win




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I think the Sisters thing is a bit skewed. The players that have reported Sisters games thus far are quite veteran.

I think I may be inclined to agree with you. I've been a Witchunter since 4th edition and I'm up to 5-0 in 8th edition. My army isn't that far removed from what I've been using for years while all the other people in my gaming group keep trying new stuff each week. It's a nice feeling to have a really potent army, but as other's have mentioned the SoB were only ever bad in 5th edition. The rest of the time they were pretty competitive.

 Kroem wrote:

Or the other armies need their snowflake options and strats back via codex updates (assuming the IG aren't going ham again with that).

I don't like this solution, making everything as powerful as the most powerful thing is how you get power creep.

The trouble with nerfs is that it feels bad to have bought and painted a unit, only for it to then be worse than it was before.

Well, in this case it isn't about "buffing" armies so much as "finishing" them. The indexes are very incomplete. While they do manage to get most of their units in, a lot of armies are missing a ton of wargear and special rules that they usually have. The codexes are expected to bring them back.

For example, chapter tactics in the Space Marine codex. That is a thing for them (though how relevant/strong they were has varied), and the indexes have been forcing them to play without them. Expect to see Space Marine victories skyrocketing after the codex drops. Or at least Raven Guard, if we decide to start tracking them separately.

Once we get codex releases, we'll need people to specify whether they are using codexes or not. And we should tabulate the codex games separately from index games.

 Selym wrote:
Once we get codex releases, we'll need people to specify whether they are using codexes or not. And we should tabulate the codex games separately from index games.

Personally I would propose that we make a rule that you can only report a game if both players are using their most up to date rules (IE their codex releases). The whole point of this thread and the collection of data is to see how the armies are performing on the table with relation to others. That data becomes useless if people are using different rulesets for their factions. Allowing someone to report a game for data purposes using the index after their codex comes out would be like me reporting a battle back in 7th using the Tau 4th edition codex. It completely messes up the data. I'm not telling people to go out and by your codex (though I personally think you should use your most up to date rules regardless), but if you plan on reporting battles in this thread, use your most recent rules release. If we don't do that, then this thread is pretty much useless.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Once we get codex releases, we'll need people to specify whether they are using codexes or not. And we should tabulate the codex games separately from index games.

Personally I would propose that we make a rule that you can only report a game if both players are using their most up to date rules (IE their codex releases). The whole point of this thread and the collection of data is to see how the armies are performing on the table with relation to others. That data becomes useless if people are using different rulesets for their factions. Allowing someone to report a game for data purposes using the index after their codex comes out would be like me reporting a battle back in 7th using the Tau 4th edition codex. It completely messes up the data. I'm not telling people to go out and by your codex (though I personally think you should use your most up to date rules regardless), but if you plan on reporting battles in this thread, use your most recent rules release. If we don't do that, then this thread is pretty much useless.

I completely agree.

In fact, the OP post could be divided in 3 parts:
1. Index only games
2. Index vs Codex games
3. Codex vs Codex games

after everyone has their codex, we could abandon this thread and start a fresh one, bringing back only the #3 results

Another data-gathering idea:

We should distinguish games that allow Forge World from games that disallow them, to see if Forge World really is upsetting the balance as much as people claim it will.

I suspect that it will not, but having some data one way or the other would be useful.

Vector Strike wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Once we get codex releases, we'll need people to specify whether they are using codexes or not. And we should tabulate the codex games separately from index games.

Personally I would propose that we make a rule that you can only report a game if both players are using their most up to date rules (IE their codex releases). The whole point of this thread and the collection of data is to see how the armies are performing on the table with relation to others. That data becomes useless if people are using different rulesets for their factions. Allowing someone to report a game for data purposes using the index after their codex comes out would be like me reporting a battle back in 7th using the Tau 4th edition codex. It completely messes up the data. I'm not telling people to go out and by your codex (though I personally think you should use your most up to date rules regardless), but if you plan on reporting battles in this thread, use your most recent rules release. If we don't do that, then this thread is pretty much useless.

I completely agree.

In fact, the OP post could be divided in 3 parts:
1. Index only games
2. Index vs Codex games
3. Codex vs Codex games

after everyone has their codex, we could abandon this thread and start a fresh one, bringing back only the #3 results

I think what I might do, to keep it less complicated, is freeze a factions results once they gain a codex. People will then only be allowed to post results for a faction with a codex if the player used that codex, no index users after the codex comes out. That way we'll see whether the codex increases their affectiveness.

The problem with seperating into Index/Index-Codex/Codex results is that the results become far too spread out and complicated since each faction will need: results for their faction with index against index, results for their faction with index against codex, results for their faction with codex against index and results for their faction with codex against codex. Suddenly the data is split into quarters and the data table quadruples it's fields.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Another data-gathering idea:

We should distinguish games that allow Forge World from games that disallow them, to see if Forge World really is upsetting the balance as much as people claim it will.

I suspect that it will not, but having some data one way or the other would be useful.

Probably too late for that since people have probably already reported many battles that used FW models.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Another data-gathering idea:

We should distinguish games that allow Forge World from games that disallow them, to see if Forge World really is upsetting the balance as much as people claim it will.

I suspect that it will not, but having some data one way or the other would be useful.

Probably too late for that since people have probably already reported many battles that used FW models.

We could start a new thread. I'm bad at this sort of thing though, or else I would. This thread could remain the 'whole game' thread, and the other one could just be focused on Forge World? But yes, for this thread it's a bit late.

I wouldn't bother separating index from codex battles other than chronologically. When the codex for a faction is released, their index is obsolete and should be phased out. Saying "but I want to keep using the index" would be like saying "I know my army just got their 6th edition codex, but I really like my 2nd edition codex so I'm going to keep using it".

Sure, this means that until all the codices are out there will be codex vs index battles, just like how early in a new edition there are people using the previous edition's codex. But when a new codex causes a balance shift that will be visible chronologically: their performance will change post-release as the new codex gets adopted.

FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

This is why we need data, because of posts like this which assert a fact, and then when I'm like 'cite, please' they will have something to point to, and I can say 'fair enough, you're right'.

Or they won't have something to point to, and then maybe they'll realize they were wrong.

I'm kinda glad I never have to worry about ITC rulings. They seem odd a lot of the time. Tournaments here don't use them.

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

You're absolutely right it is. If I hadn't wasted over 400 points in my last game on my R'Varna (FW Riptide variant) that took 4 turns to kill 2 basilisks and did nothing else all game and used those points on units that were actually useful like Stealth Suits, Breacher Teams, Fusion Commanders, or Gun Drones I would have won that game much faster and much more decisively.

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

lol...thanks for the laugh, needed that.

FW is GW, for all intents and purposes. No idea why people don't understand this fact. FW is extremely popular and brings a lot of things to the hobby. There are several threads on Dakka focussing on this, so not going to derail this thread.

OT, is anyone counting Youtube bat reps for victories/losses?

Saying "we should ban forgeworld because some armies get more out of it than others" is exactly, and I mean exactly, on par with saying:

- We should ban X types of units because some armies get more out of it than others

- We should ban Dataslates because some armies get more out of it than others

- We should ban Codexes until everyone has one because some armies get more out of it than others

- We should ban Indexes once everyone has their Codex, because some armies get more out of it than others

- We should ban (Insert BRB Rule) because some armies get more out of it than others

And GW has explicitly said before that FW units are part of normal 40k, and that is an intentional part of their design. Whether or not that design is good is another matter, but if GW is trying to make a single cohesive game you must consider FW as being the same as dataslates, psuedo-mandatory supplements, and codexes.

 Melissia wrote:
Honestly I think the Sisters thing is a bit skewed. The players that have reported Sisters games thus far are quite veteran.

Sisters are a solid army in general, and Celestine is as flagrantly busted as anything in any other army. It may be a bit skewed but I don't think it's by much.

Eldar VS Crons: Draw.
Nids VS Orks: Nids win.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

You're absolutely right it is. If I hadn't wasted over 400 points in my last game on my R'Varna (FW Riptide variant) that took 4 turns to kill 2 basilisks and did nothing else all game and used those points on units that were actually useful like Stealth Suits, Breacher Teams, Fusion Commanders, or Gun Drones I would have won that game much faster and much more decisively.

Well you're playing against Guard. No matter what you bring, you're at a disadvantage, they are OP.

For instance, all of the Tau games I reported as wins featured the R'Varna. It is definitely an anti-assault unit, firing 3D6 nasty flamer nonsense in overwatch, and nova charging, with a 4++, and 14 wounds, a an 18" fly move to get out of combat... You basically took anti-assault models against tanks, that's a fight you should lose.

The R'Varna should go right at your opponent's heaviest assault units. Fire your flamers, get charged, flame, leave combat, flame again. In the span of 1 assault you've done 9D6 flamer hits, ignoring your other weaponry. I can't fathom why you'd complain about the R'Varna, that thing is absolutely beast.

And the question was, "is it influencing these stats," the answer is yes, it is, because a lot of the games i've reported have featured FW. And the FW army won every one. You could argue that's not the general but it does influence the results, by definition.

 Marmatag wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

You're absolutely right it is. If I hadn't wasted over 400 points in my last game on my R'Varna (FW Riptide variant) that took 4 turns to kill 2 basilisks and did nothing else all game and used those points on units that were actually useful like Stealth Suits, Breacher Teams, Fusion Commanders, or Gun Drones I would have won that game much faster and much more decisively.

Well you're playing against Guard. No matter what you bring, you're at a disadvantage, they are OP.

For instance, all of the Tau games I reported as wins featured the R'Varna. It is definitely an anti-assault unit, firing 3D6 nasty flamer nonsense in overwatch, and nova charging, with a 4++, and 14 wounds, a an 18" fly move to get out of combat... You basically took anti-assault models against tanks, that's a fight you should lose.

The R'Varna should go right at your opponent's heaviest assault units. Fire your flamers, get charged, flame, leave combat, flame again. In the span of 1 assault you've done 9D6 flamer hits, ignoring your other weaponry. I can't fathom why you'd complain about the R'Varna, that thing is absolutely beast.

And the question was, "is it influencing these stats," the answer is yes, it is, because a lot of the games i've reported have featured FW. And the FW army won every one. You could argue that's not the general but it does influence the results, by definition.

I think we do need this thread now. If only because data = evidence, and not anecdotes.

Forgeworld is fine in any game I play, even though I don't have any models. If they follow GW (which all indications are they will) then we will see "chapter approved" point changes for things.

In the meantime, let the Tau have their bone.

From last week, SW Vs Sm: SW win i wiped the floor with him he only killed one pack of bloodclaws all game.

SW Vs nids: nids win i took an elite army and he won by a fair margin

 Marmatag wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

You're absolutely right it is. If I hadn't wasted over 400 points in my last game on my R'Varna (FW Riptide variant) that took 4 turns to kill 2 basilisks and did nothing else all game and used those points on units that were actually useful like Stealth Suits, Breacher Teams, Fusion Commanders, or Gun Drones I would have won that game much faster and much more decisively.

Well you're playing against Guard. No matter what you bring, you're at a disadvantage, they are OP.

For instance, all of the Tau games I reported as wins featured the R'Varna. It is definitely an anti-assault unit, firing 3D6 nasty flamer nonsense in overwatch, and nova charging, with a 4++, and 14 wounds, a an 18" fly move to get out of combat... You basically took anti-assault models against tanks, that's a fight you should lose.

The R'Varna should go right at your opponent's heaviest assault units. Fire your flamers, get charged, flame, leave combat, flame again. In the span of 1 assault you've done 9D6 flamer hits, ignoring your other weaponry. I can't fathom why you'd complain about the R'Varna, that thing is absolutely beast.

And the question was, "is it influencing these stats," the answer is yes, it is, because a lot of the games i've reported have featured FW. And the FW army won every one. You could argue that's not the general but it does influence the results, by definition.

You are thinking of the Y'vahra not the R'varna. The R'varna has 2 guns with 3d3 S6 shots at 60" not a flamer.

Mate just got some games in and sent me the results;

Imperial Knights VS Space Marines - SM Victory
Imperial Knights VS Astra - AM Victory
Imperial Knights VS Space Marines - SM Victory

 FirePainter wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.

You're absolutely right it is. If I hadn't wasted over 400 points in my last game on my R'Varna (FW Riptide variant) that took 4 turns to kill 2 basilisks and did nothing else all game and used those points on units that were actually useful like Stealth Suits, Breacher Teams, Fusion Commanders, or Gun Drones I would have won that game much faster and much more decisively.

Well you're playing against Guard. No matter what you bring, you're at a disadvantage, they are OP.

For instance, all of the Tau games I reported as wins featured the R'Varna. It is definitely an anti-assault unit, firing 3D6 nasty flamer nonsense in overwatch, and nova charging, with a 4++, and 14 wounds, a an 18" fly move to get out of combat... You basically took anti-assault models against tanks, that's a fight you should lose.

The R'Varna should go right at your opponent's heaviest assault units. Fire your flamers, get charged, flame, leave combat, flame again. In the span of 1 assault you've done 9D6 flamer hits, ignoring your other weaponry. I can't fathom why you'd complain about the R'Varna, that thing is absolutely beast.

And the question was, "is it influencing these stats," the answer is yes, it is, because a lot of the games i've reported have featured FW. And the FW army won every one. You could argue that's not the general but it does influence the results, by definition.

You are thinking of the Y'vahra not the R'varna. The R'varna has 2 guns with 3d3 S6 shots at 60" not a flamer.

My mistake; apologies. I don't have the FW codex. I just looked it up in battlescribe. can't fathom why you'd use anything other than the Y'vahra. It's so good.

3D6 strength 6, ap-2, 3 damage flamer.
3d3 strength 10, ap-3, 3 damage; wounds of 6+ deal d3 mortals to vehicles
2+/4++
14w, 7t
can freely leave the table and deep strike.

And it's only 395 points, that's with 0 wargear options. How would you not take this... It's a fast attack. Take 3, get a command point. Seriously look this thing up. It's the exact same size as a Riptide. If someone allows you to use FW just use your riptides as this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I think we do need this thread now. If only because data = evidence, and not anecdotes.

I have supplied data and not anecdotes. This could not be clearer. A thread would be helpful though. FW win loss.

 Marmatag wrote:



You are thinking of the Y'vahra not the R'varna. The R'varna has 2 guns with 3d3 S6 shots at 60" not a flamer.

My mistake; apologies. I don't have the FW codex. I just looked it up in battlescribe. can't fathom why you'd use anything other than the Y'vahra. It's so good.

3D6 strength 6, ap-2, 3 damage flamer.
3d3 strength 10, ap-3, 3 damage; wounds of 6+ deal d3 mortals to vehicles
2+/4++
14w, 7t
can freely leave the table and deep strike.

And it's only 395 points, that's with 0 wargear options. How would you not take this... It's a fast attack. Take 3, get a command point. Seriously look this thing up. It's the exact same size as a Riptide. If someone allows you to use FW just use your riptides as this.