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.

GW as been on point of fixing broken auto takes. First flyers, then Brimstones, conscripts, commisars, and now Malefic Lords.

Stop trying to break the game, and GW won't have to Nerf it down to fix it.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Assuming they receive no other benefits

Sorry I'm not getting excited for unmentioned theoretically possible buff.

Daedalus81 wrote:
and ignoring that she was practically only ever used in soup.

Do you know any Sisters players who didn't use her?


But sorry I guess I'm being too negative. Let me try something better. Damn that potential 3 point reduction on all Sisters infantry is such a great potential buff that will totally help Sisters if it actually happens! So cool!

I must have missed that for sisters. Down three points per model? Hot damn, that's actually enough (along with buffs) to make the sisters a pretty decent, and somewhat hordish, shooty army.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
GW as been on point of fixing broken auto takes. First flyers, then Brimstones, conscripts, commisars, and now Malefic Lords.

Stop trying to break the game, and GW won't have to Nerf it down to fix it.

Alternately, they could stop introducing things broken, and then they wouldn't half to get out the nerf bat when sales decline.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Stop trying to break the game, and GW won't have to Nerf it down to fix it.

When things are too good, that's the game designers' fault, not the players'. I want GW to provide me with a reasonably balanced ruleset, not a steaming pile I'm expected to fix myself.

You absolutely should try to break the game, and then if you succeed, GW should fix it. For too long has the burden of balancing the game fallen on the shoulders of the players, so long that many seem to have forgotten it shouldn't be that way.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I must have missed that for sisters. Down three points per model? Hot damn, that's actually enough (along with buffs) to make the sisters a pretty decent, and somewhat hordish, shooty army.

Thats was sarcasm Sisters of Battle for 6ppm would be actually pretty dam broken.

 Melissia wrote:
So did anyone have a full run-up of the current known points changes, or is it still all rumors?

All legit from what I saw. Force Sword was missing. It's 8 points now along with the Force Staff. Also, Librarian with Jump Pack was missing. I think he is 110 now?

Glad to see the nerf to Malefic Lords. Now Chaos players (of which I am one and my last tournament list used 3 Malefic Lords) actually have to build a competitive list without just resorting to "take as many Lords as we can squeeze into 3 detachments". I'm hoping it will encourage more diversity in list building. Likewise, I'm hoping the point increases to other auto-take characters like G-man and Cawl will encourage competitive lists for their factions that aren't Ultramarines or Mars. I am a little nervous about whether or not Azrael will get a points increase in the upcoming Dark Angels codex as he is very much an auto-include for competitive lists, but if they are bumping up the costs of these other characters then he should get it too.

So...when do the various TO's start enforcing these point changes? Dec 2?

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Glad to see the nerf to Malefic Lords. Now Chaos players (of which I am one and my last tournament list used 3 Malefic Lords) actually have to build a competitive list without just resorting to "take as many Lords as we can squeeze into 3 detachments". I'm hoping it will encourage more diversity in list building. Likewise, I'm hoping the point increases to other auto-take characters like G-man and Cawl will encourage competitive lists for their factions that aren't Ultramarines or Mars. I am a little nervous about whether or not Azrael will get a points increase in the upcoming Dark Angels codex as he is very much an auto-include for competitive lists, but if they are bumping up the costs of these other characters then he should get it too.

Honestly to me it seems like GW have realised just how valuable aura abilities for a full reroll to hit can be. Conferring blanket rerolls to huge portions of the army absolutely needs to cost more.

*put on old man hat* - back in my day when I was a 40k youngin' the ability to reroll hits of any variety was a rare sight indeed, and even then it was only for the unit the character was attached to.

I really want to see some FW index costs adjusted. An IG Thunderer (the Leman russ with just a hull mounted Demolisher cannon) is more expensive than a LR Demolisher with a Lascannon. Why, just why?????

 Cream Tea wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Stop trying to break the game, and GW won't have to Nerf it down to fix it.

When things are too good, that's the game designers' fault, not the players'. I want GW to provide me with a reasonably balanced ruleset, not a steaming pile I'm expected to fix myself.

You absolutely should try to break the game, and then if you succeed, GW should fix it. For too long has the burden of balancing the game fallen on the shoulders of the players, so long that many seem to have forgotten it shouldn't be that way.

The situation you describe is the scenario we have here, they're doing their best to correct the situation for the players.

I do think in response to some other posts I don't think sales have an impact at all since malefic lord isn't even a mini on their books, plus most people converted them.

It's good that GW is attempting to rebalance things as the meta changes and shifts. That's what's needed and what people have been crying out for.

Of course it shouldn't remove the onus on them to write and proof things correctly, but the two aren't linked and it's a positive development. Charging for it is sucky, but they exist to sell stuff, and in Chapter Approved and the General's Handbooks they've figured out a way to sell every player a (to all intents and purposes) mandatory bit of DLC every year. It's smart. Manipulative, yes, but smart. Books don't take up any in-house production capacity, as the printing is outsourced, so if the rumours of injection moulding volume strains are true books are a godsend for them. And dropping it right before Christmas means they capture the self-purchase and gifting markets. Savvy.

Let's not forget they've stated that they don't want to even think about doing a 9th edition... they call it 'the new Warhammer 40,000' internally, and in interviews have suggested it will be an ever-evolving beast. I can see a new 8.x BRB down the line, incorporating all the changes to that point, as that will be another money-spinner.

Ultimately, if you want a truly balanced game you need to play the same units with the same abilities on both sides. Otherwise there will always be inherent imbalance. GW seem to be demonstrating they're trying to curtail unintended imbalances and rebalance where necessary. Shame to charge for updated points but it is what it is. For those light on funds it's not like BattleScribe won't be updated within days, anyway...

 Galas wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I must have missed that for sisters. Down three points per model? Hot damn, that's actually enough (along with buffs) to make the sisters a pretty decent, and somewhat hordish, shooty army.

Thats was sarcasm Sisters of Battle for 6ppm would be actually pretty dam broken.

Confirmed sarcasm. People were telling me to be enthusiastic about unannounced point cost drops so I made up some broken one.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Ultimately, if you want a truly balanced game you need to play the same units with the same abilities on both sides. Otherwise there will always be inherent imbalance. GW seem to be demonstrating they're trying to curtail unintended imbalances and rebalance where necessary. Shame to charge for updated points but it is what it is. For those light on funds it's not like BattleScribe won't be updated within days, anyway...

Amen to that.

And those saying 'the community can make a better balanced game than this' should take a peek at 9th Age, where the current moan is.....lack of balance!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Let's not forget they've stated that they don't want to even think about doing a 9th edition... they call it 'the new Warhammer 40,000' internally, and in interviews have suggested it will be an ever-evolving beast. I can see a new 8.x BRB down the line, incorporating all the changes to that point, as that will be another money-spinner.

They have said that before...

They NEVER admits right off the bat there will be another edition. It still will come eventually.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ultimately, if you want a truly balanced game you need to play the same units with the same abilities on both sides.

This has been proven wrong multiple times, please stop repeating that nonsense.

The first StarCraft is the poster child of an almost perfectly balanced game and none of the three factions have even a single unit in common.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ultimately, if you want a truly balanced game you need to play the same units with the same abilities on both sides.

This has been proven wrong multiple times, please stop repeating that nonsense.

The first StarCraft is the poster child of an almost perfectly balanced game and none of the three factions have even a single unit in common.

Apart from possibility it's not as balanced as people might think bolded keyword is the key:

Also starcraft game developers control basically all things related to balance. Warhammer less so. There's lots of variables warhammer doesn't affect that have big impact on balance. Just looking at typical boards we use to several of tables I have seen from tournaments...Well BIG difference. Shapes, types, amount and position never match and terrain can have HUGE effect. Albeit less in 8th ed with some terrain but change layout of LOS blocking terrain will have big impact on balance.

For example just for simple example: Non-indirect long range weapons are lot less worthwhile on our tables than many of the rather barren boards in tournaments. You pay for range you don't get to use as much.

Good luck balancing that. Unless GW goes for fixed terrain that MUST be what they sell in exact same shape it's impossible.

So with the hefty increase in price for the Malefic Lord does that mean that there will be no change to Smite?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Let's not forget they've stated that they don't want to even think about doing a 9th edition... they call it 'the new Warhammer 40,000' internally, and in interviews have suggested it will be an ever-evolving beast. I can see a new 8.x BRB down the line, incorporating all the changes to that point, as that will be another money-spinner.

I'm pretty sure that GW has said that every edition of 40k has been the last that was needed. Honestly the changes from 7-8 aren't as major as those from 2-3.

Not to say 9th will drop any time soon, or that when it does drop it will be as revolutionary as 8th, but I'd be very surprised if it never came.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I really want to see some FW index costs adjusted. An IG Thunderer (the Leman russ with just a hull mounted Demolisher cannon) is more expensive than a LR Demolisher with a Lascannon. Why, just why?????

Extra wound, 13 rather than 12 and then later 10 point drop of GW Leman Russ.

 Verviedi wrote:
One wonders why someone would ever actually play “Open Play”. The negotiation before game saves no time - in the time spent on all of the bargaining and self-balancing, one could easily write a list with power levels, or if you really want to, points. The Open War cards combined with Narrative Play or Matched Play provide anything you’ll ever want diversitywise.

I play almost exclusively open. Mostly because I use house rules which means what I play isn't matched.

Points vs Power

We use both. If its just quick list building or we want to experiment with a bunch of wargear options without the nit picking points we will go with power. But mostly we have been sticking with points.

Missions

We are making use of every mission. Narrative, matched, whatever. Play what looks fun.

Matched And Advanced Rules In Effect At All Times

-Army Faction and Battleforged Army Construction with Army Roster
-Reinforcement Points
-Strategic Discipline
-Tactical Reserves (unless a specific mission would require otherwise)
-HOUSE RULE: We do not use Psychic Focus, but we do specify that psychic powers do not stack with themselves (I.E. I could not cast The Horror (-1 to hit and ld) on the same unit multiple times for a cumulative effect. I can still cast The Horror multiple times each time targeting a different unit).
-Battlefield Terrain
-City Ruins
-HOUSE RULE: We extend the behind terrain/50% obscured to other terrain that are at least 3" tall. We mostly don't have other types of terrain, but it has been agreed that if we had some woods (we assume the trees would be at least 3" above the table) than infantry would have cover if you have to shoot through the woods and other models would get it if 50% obscured.
-Height Advantage
-Fire In The Hole
-Leaving Combat Airspace
-HOUSE RULE: We use 7th ed targeting in that wings, tails, banners, antenna, and other decorative portrudeing elements cannot be used to draw LOS (You cannot aim from them and you cannot target them). Like 7th says, you shouldn't be penalized for putting your models in fun and epic positions. Neat decorative elements shouldn't impact the game play. So they don't.

We have since added that our version of psychic focus makes each cast of the same power adds 1 to the target number of the power. I.E. 1rst smite is 6. 2nd is 7. 3rd is 8. So spaming the same power over and over quickly becomes a fruitless task. Helps promote a mix of powers.


Again, thats open play. It's mostly matched, but it's not actually matched. We have also added the open mission cards to the mix if we want some randomness to the mission.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ultimately, if you want a truly balanced game you need to play the same units with the same abilities on both sides.

This has been proven wrong multiple times, please stop repeating that nonsense.

The first StarCraft is the poster child of an almost perfectly balanced game and none of the three factions have even a single unit in common.

.

Or you could respect my opinion and not dub it 'nonsense' if you expect discourse. Rule 1 extends beyond swear words.

It's also not not nonsense. Such a thing would be the very definition of a balanced game. Please demonstrate how anything could be more balanced - it couldn't.

Besides, a computer game (so not tabletop) with limited units does not seem at all comparable to a sprawling tabletop game with multiple factions, setups, strategies, ways to play, etc. YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mandragola wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Let's not forget they've stated that they don't want to even think about doing a 9th edition... they call it 'the new Warhammer 40,000' internally, and in interviews have suggested it will be an ever-evolving beast. I can see a new 8.x BRB down the line, incorporating all the changes to that point, as that will be another money-spinner.

I'm pretty sure that GW has said that every edition of 40k has been the last that was needed. Honestly the changes from 7-8 aren't as major as those from 2-3.

Not to say 9th will drop any time soon, or that when it does drop it will be as revolutionary as 8th, but I'd be very surprised if it never came.

Can't disagree with this - my point was more that they'll milk more products to sell us... updated 8.x Rulebook, v2 Codexes, etc. You kinda seized on the wrong half of my point.

tneva82 wrote:
Apart from possibility it's not as balanced as people might think bolded keyword is the key:

Also starcraft game developers control basically all things related to balance. Warhammer less so. There's lots of variables warhammer doesn't affect that have big impact on balance. Just looking at typical boards we use to several of tables I have seen from tournaments...Well BIG difference. Shapes, types, amount and position never match and terrain can have HUGE effect. Albeit less in 8th ed with some terrain but change layout of LOS blocking terrain will have big impact on balance.

For example just for simple example: Non-indirect long range weapons are lot less worthwhile on our tables than many of the rather barren boards in tournaments. You pay for range you don't get to use as much.

Good luck balancing that. Unless GW goes for fixed terrain that MUST be what they sell in exact same shape it's impossible.

Your argument was that all units must be the same across all armies in order to balance them. This has literally nothing to do with that.

Also while your point is true, the conclusion is not. Terrain will vary across tables, so will gaming results. However, across tens of thousands of games there will be trends about what the problems are.
When there are balancing issues of some units being too strong, the issue will appear on many gaming tables around the world, like malific lords, flyer spam, brimstone horrors and conscripts have.
In the same manner units that are to weak will be absent from many tables around the world, like space marine bikes or wyches.

Balancing is not a complex formula which makes your gaming system perfect once you have figured it out. It's an iterative process that collects, analyses and reacts to data.
Also, considering how much WH40k hinges on chance, perfect balance is not needed at all. If all armies would be +-10% of each other, dice would matter more than terrain density.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Can't disagree with this - my point was more that they'll milk more products to sell us... updated 8.x Rulebook, v2 Codexes, etc. You kinda seized on the wrong half of my point.

Or they do what they have so far done and likely will do in future. Announce "this is the definite edition" followed by(now possibly just few years) later new edition and milk customers some more by selling next edition(maybe next is 10 like windows and power armour jumped mark ) with accompanying codexes.

The "this is the definite edition of warhammer 40k" has been heard before. Don't buy it here either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Also while your point is true, the conclusion is not. Terrain will vary across tables, so will gaming results. However, across tens of thousands of games there will be trends about what the problems are.
When there are balancing issues of some units being too strong, the issue will appear on many gaming tables around the world, like malific lords, flyer spam, brimstone horrors and conscripts have.
In the same manner units that are to weak will be absent from many tables around the world, like space marine bikes or wyches.

Balancing is not a complex formula which makes your gaming system perfect once you have figured it out. It's an iterative process that collects, analyses and reacts to data.
Also, considering how much WH40k hinges on chance, perfect balance is not needed at all. If all armies would be +-10% of each other, dice would matter more than terrain density.

Problem is no matter how long you iterate you never are going to get it right. You found loophole and fixed it? Nice. Except that opened up loop hole for others so to fix THAT you would have to go back where it was except that opens up the loophole...See the circle.

There's no formula to be found as there is no balance to be found either. Only way you CAN have things balanced is totally custom scenarios with fixed army lists. Anything short of that is imbalanced.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Or you could respect my opinion and not dub it 'nonsense' if you expect discourse. Rule 1 extends beyond swear words.

That's as much as an opinion as claiming the earth to be flat. No matter what your opinion on that matter is, the earth is not flat. Games can be balanced even if players are not using the same game pieces. There are dozens of examples across all genres.

It's also not not nonsense. Such a thing would be the very definition of a balanced game. Please demonstrate how anything could be more balanced - it couldn't.

Your statement was that a game cannot be balanced unless it fulfills that requirement, and I specifically called out that statement as nonsense. You're moving goal posts.
You might want to give https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ a read.

Besides, a computer game (so not tabletop) with limited units does not seem at all comparable to a sprawling tabletop game with multiple factions, setups, strategies, ways to play, etc. YMMV.

Just because you don't like the counter-example it's still a counter-example. RTS are nothing but table top war games with millions of rounds - in the early days games could switch between real-time and turn-based play.
I'd also point out that the original Dawn of War games is also considered a pretty balanced game and it contained almost all factions and units of the tabletop, plus technologies, buildings and resource mechanics. If anything, it was more complex than WH40k, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Problem is no matter how long you iterate you never are going to get it right. You found loophole and fixed it? Nice. Except that opened up loop hole for others so to fix THAT you would have to go back where it was except that opens up the loophole...See the circle.

Nope, that's just a logical fallacy. Two actually.
First, not every fix is going to create a loop hole - I'm not aware of any loop holes being opened by the "Boots on the Ground" rule.
Second, balancing is not binary - how can you even claim that when there is such a thing as point values? You basically claimed that it's impossible to assign any point values but 30 and 80 to malific lords.

Let's take the malific lord as an example. At 30 points it was too good. At 80 points it might be too bad. However, there might be a point value (or a range of those) where the malific lord is still a valid HQ choice for a chaos army while not being an auto-include you want as often as possible.
If there is no such point value, the rules of the malific lord must be toned down (or up) and the points adjusted again. Then you repeat the process until you're done.

There's no formula to be found as there is no balance to be found either. Only way you CAN have things balanced is totally custom scenarios with fixed army lists. Anything short of that is imbalanced.

Yeah, but once you roll the first dice that scenarios is also no longer balanced as well because someone is going to be losing a model first.

I can only repeat myself. Balance is not an exact result. A game only needs to get close enough for game work well. There are hundreds of balanced games out there, of any genre. Therefore any claim that balance cannot be archived is nonsense.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Or you could respect my opinion and not dub it 'nonsense' if you expect discourse. Rule 1 extends beyond swear words.

That's as much as an opinion as claiming the earth to be flat. No matter what your opinion on that matter is, the earth is not flat. Games can be balanced even if players are not using the same game pieces. There are dozens of examples across all genres.

It's also not not nonsense. Such a thing would be the very definition of a balanced game. Please demonstrate how anything could be more balanced - it couldn't.

Your statement was that a game cannot be balanced unless it fulfills that requirement, and I specifically called out that statement as nonsense. You're moving goal posts.
You might want to give https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ a read.

Besides, a computer game (so not tabletop) with limited units does not seem at all comparable to a sprawling tabletop game with multiple factions, setups, strategies, ways to play, etc. YMMV.

Just because you don't like the counter-example it's still a counter-example. RTS are nothing but table top war games with millions of rounds - in the early days games could switch between real-time and turn-based play.
I'd also point out that the original Dawn of War games is also considered a pretty balanced game and it contained almost all factions and units of the tabletop, plus technologies, buildings and resource mechanics. If anything, it was more complex than WH40k, not less.

Don't be so binary - try some nuance in your reading. I said 'truly balanced'. It's self-evident that an army vs a duplicate army is totally balanced. I meant no more than that. I didn't say other levels of balance weren't possible. I also said I felt it wasn't a relevant counter-example, stating my opinion. Yours is different WHO KNEW. IM SHOCKED.

Stow the insults too, please. I read and reason just fine. That you don't like my argument doesn't give you leeway to dub it a fallacy, and I don't need your passive-aggressiveness, especially when the 'logical fallacy 101' is more applicable to your flat earth attempt at derision. If you'd like to take this tangent further please PM me to save you clogging up the thread. Again, Rule 1 here extends beyond swears. What happened to just discussing? Why does everyone take everything as binary, polar opposites? Makes discussion pretty difficult and unfun.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don't be so binary - try some nuance in your reading. I said 'truly balanced'. It's self-evident that an army vs a duplicate army is totally balanced.

Yes, and I said that an army of imperial super-heavies facing off against a tyranid horde can be totally balanced as well. If you claim that games cannot be truly balanced unless everyone has the same game pieces and there are games that are balanced despite players not having the same game pieces, you are wrong.
Many people used to have the opinion that the earth is flat despite there being proof otherwise. Those people were wrong. Opinions can be wrong.

Stow the insults too, please. I read and reason just fine. That you don't like my argument doesn't give you leeway to dub it a fallacy, and I don't need your passive-aggressiveness, especially when the 'logical fallacy 101' is more applicable to your flat earth attempt at derision. If you'd like to take this tangent further please PM me to save you clogging up the thread. Again, Rule 1 here extends beyond swears. What happened to just discussing? Why does everyone take everything as binary, polar opposites? Makes discussion pretty difficult and unfun.

I'm confused. What part of that is an argument or a discussion?

Your argument so far are:
- That I'm not allowed to call your opinion nonsense because of rule #1.
- That only mirror matches can be balanced unless I can prove that there is something more balanced than mirror matches.
- WH40k is way more complex than computer games, therefore WH40k cannot be balanced, even if computer games can be.

I responded with arguments to all of those. You responded to nothing I have written.

 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
So with the hefty increase in price for the Malefic Lord does that mean that there will be no change to Smite?

I would have expected GW to at least hint at (if not announce) any global Smite nerf in yesterday's blog if one was coming. I'm now thinking that any such change will be addressed by tweaking specific unit points values, a la Malefic Lords

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Unbalanced posting

 Jidmah wrote:
Unbalanced posting

Those sure are some insightful and relevant points about Chapter Approved news & rumours folks! Would you perhaps like to get a room together in another (and more on-topic) thread?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/23/get-ready-for-chapter-approved-battlezones-nov-23gw-homepage-post-3/

Battlezones

Complimenting both these game types is a range of datasheets and extra rulings for in-game terrain. You’ll find deeper rules for all your Sector Mechanicus buildings – plasma scenery, for example, offers cover to your units, but has a chance to discharge plasma when they come under fire. Meanwhile, Chapter Approved contains rules for a huge range of fortifications, so adding bunkers, defence towers and more to your army is easier than ever!... We’ll be covering these fortifications in more detail tomorrow when we round off our previews with a closer look at Stronghold Assault, Planetstrike and the handy campaign guidelines provided in Chapter Approved.