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.

It looks like FW Tyranids are getting nerfed, but the rest of Tyranids aren't getting buffed. That's especially funny because while codex Tyranids are competitive they are far from touching the likes of Chaos and Guard.

I'm super excited about the Guard nerfs, and the Malefic Lord nerfs. It's about time. I'm seriously concerned that those nerfs don't go far enough though.

Even after Reecius adjusted the ITC missions to give those of us without the ability to beat gunlines a chance - and the new missions are fantastic - Guard was still dominating because they can ignore objective based gameplay and table you completely. Guard needs adjusting. So did Malefic Lords. But let the salt flow. Maybe now you'll have to use tactics when you throw down your models, instead of just expecting to roll dice and win.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.

M.

Of fething course it doesn't make sense.

People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.

This.

EricDominus wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.

So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.

Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?

They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?

About what 28 pts your are talking about?

Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.

Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.

Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.

Do you get it now?

Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?

Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GW actually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.

So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.

Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?

They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?

About what 28 pts your are talking about?

Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.

Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.

Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.

Do you get it now?

Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?

I'd've settled for roughly the same, e.g. 105 to 108, respectively.

EricDominus wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.

M.

Of fething course it doesn't make sense.

People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.

This.

You realize I'm disagreeing with you, right?

The decision GW made was pants on head slowed. An earthshaker platform should cost less than a basilisk. Making it cost more ensure it will never see the table.

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.

So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.

Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?

They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?

About what 28 pts your are talking about?

Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.

Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.

Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.

Do you get it now?

Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?

80 is nice and good for immobile solo gun, that can be easily killed. At least 90, if 80 feels THAT unfair. But not make it cost HIGHER that fully kited gun on track with additional weapon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.

M.

Of fething course it doesn't make sense.

People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.

This.

You realize I'm disagreeing with you, right?

The decision GW made was pants on head slowed. An earthshaker platform should cost less than a basilisk. Making it cost more ensure it will never see the table.

No, i dont, coz i stand for the same as you. Immobile solo gun MUST cost less then fully kited basilisk.

I think everyone is forgetting that the basilisk is a degrading platform for BS. That alone makes it worth less than earthshaker carriages and batteries. Or at least make them equal in points and force a choice of durability or reliability. I still think carriages are better.

 Luciferian wrote:
Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GW actually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.

The ITC tournament ranking system collects massive amounts of data in regards to army performance.

GW is looking at aggregate faction performance, as well as performance in major tournaments.

For instance, you see that pretty much the same exact Imperial Guard list has been winning tournaments since 8th dropped, even after all of their nerfs, and the only true competitor is Chaos, because of Magnus, Malefic Lords, and a couple good but not OP units.

Nerfs to Guard are really no surprise if you've played even 1 competitive game of 40k since 8th dropped. It is incredibly strong and most armies have actually no chance against them. It's not good for the game if Necrons and Tyranids NEVER WIN A TOURNAMENT, and AM/IG, or IG Soup'd marines, win basically every event?

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EricDominus wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?

Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."

I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.

Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.

M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.

I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.

Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.

Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.

Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.

So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.

Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?

They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?

About what 28 pts your are talking about?

Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.

Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.

Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.

Do you get it now?

Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?

They didn't really spam batteries over basilisks in most cases. The overwhelmingly vast majority of IG tournament lists didn't include earthshaker batteries and carriages. You had some that really wanted to optimize that early game alpha strike that used them, to good effect to be fair, but they weren't super common. Most people probably would have been fine with a 10/15pt increase, but a nearly 50% increase of 35pts was...more than a wee bit ridiculous.

slargy wrote:
I think everyone is forgetting that the basilisk is a degrading platform for BS. That alone makes it worth less than earthshaker carriages and batteries. Or at least make them equal in points and force a choice of durability or reliability. I still think carriages are better.

Generally if something gets to the artillery like that, Basilisk or no, it's done, and by the time the Basilisk would degrade the Earthshaker Battery/Carriage would simply be dead (fewer wounds, worse save).

I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?

For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.

The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.

Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.

Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts. They all have different tacticals niches. Basilisk vs Earthshaker don't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"

This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."

The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.

It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.

 Galas wrote:
I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?

For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.

The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.

Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.

Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts.

This guy gets it

It's obvious it shouldn't be so much over a basilisk, but without addressing why they were taken over a basilisk you can't feasibly price them notably lower than a basilisk.

So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

Wayniac wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"

This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."

The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.

It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.

Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.

 Esmer wrote:
So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

Same as taking immobile gun that costs MORE then artillery tank with 2 weapons.

None.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?

For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.

The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.

Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.

Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts.

This guy gets it

It's obvious it shouldn't be so much over a basilisk, but without addressing why they were taken over a basilisk you can't feasibly price them notably lower than a basilisk.

Galas, Your example doesnt work becuase of one simple reason: you speak about the same unit, just with different loadouts.

But we are talking about different units with the same battle role.

 Esmer wrote:
So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

there isnt one

Theyre a useless redundant entry.

Are they different units with the same battle role? Ok. Can we change the name of the Primaris Psyker without Weapons to "Secundus Psyker"? Is the same as a Primaris Psyker but with one less LD and without weapons.

Thats the problem with the Earthshaker vs Basilisk. They are the same thing, but one has stuff on top of him that doesn't actually gives it anything. As I said, of course, the solution wasn't to make the Earthshaker more expensive than the Basilisk, but making him different enough to justify the existence of the Basilisk even if the Basilisk is more expensive.
Thats something that I have never liked, how for example the Lasscannon a Tank has on his main gun is exactly the same as a Lasscanon a Space Marine or a HWP uses. I assume if you put a Lasscanon on a Leman Russ or a Land Raider, it could be a heavier and more powerfull version of a Lasscannon. Then, they have different rules and tactical uses, instead of being the same weapon on different bodies. Because when you have units that share exactly the same tactical role without offering you tactical variety, one is gonna be more mathematically efficient.
Redundance is a big problem in Warhammer40k. And thats my only problem with FW. Many, many times they just make units that are literally a +1 or -1 version of something that already exist on GW.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"

This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."

The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.

It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.

Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.

Even if you aren't playing to be competitive, nobody wants to be told when they say how they like the look and fluff of Orks that Orks are a garbage-tier faction and they had best get used to losing most of their games. That's why I say these changes affect the fluff players more, because even if you're playing another casual person, there's going to be a huge gap between let's say Eldar and Orks even without trying.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"

This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."

The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.

It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.

Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.

This is more wedge-driving.

Fluff players can play both for the fluff and do it in a tournament.

Casual players bring what competitive people field to the table. So do narrative players in a lot of games. I run a narrative league and can vouch for this. People want to play for fun but they also field things that work.

People act like the lists between casual, narrative, and competitive are fundamentally different. At the core of it they're not that different, you just don't see the named big bads on the table. You can still see competitive-esque Alpha Legion tactics, just with other fun things on the table like a land raider. You can still see Guard artillery and conscript screens. You can still see 2+/4++/4+++ Nurgle Daemon princes dealing mortal wounds when they save in melee.

This game should be balanced around the competitive scene. It filters down through all the other modes and formats of play.

 Marmatag wrote:
Casual players bring what competitive people field to the table. So do narrative players in a lot of games. I run a narrative league and can vouch for this. People want to play for fun but they also field things that work.

People act like the lists between casual, narrative, and competitive are fundamentally different. At the core of it they're not that different, you just don't see the named big bads on the table. You can still see competitive-esque Alpha Legion tactics, just with other fun things on the table like a land raider. You can still see Guard artillery and conscript screens. You can still see 2+/4++/4+++ Nurgle Daemon princes dealing mortal wounds when they save in melee.

This game should be balanced around the competitive scene. It filters down through all the other modes and formats of play.

Essentially my point. I know we disagree about a few things Marmatag but this one I agree with you on.

I think the fundamentals of how to balance is where we disagree

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Casual players bring what competitive people field to the table. So do narrative players in a lot of games. I run a narrative league and can vouch for this. People want to play for fun but they also field things that work.

People act like the lists between casual, narrative, and competitive are fundamentally different. At the core of it they're not that different, you just don't see the named big bads on the table. You can still see competitive-esque Alpha Legion tactics, just with other fun things on the table like a land raider. You can still see Guard artillery and conscript screens. You can still see 2+/4++/4+++ Nurgle Daemon princes dealing mortal wounds when they save in melee.

This game should be balanced around the competitive scene. It filters down through all the other modes and formats of play.

Essentially my point. I know we disagree about a few things Marmatag but this one I agree with you on.

I think the fundamentals of how to balance is where we disagree

Hehe yeah.

It also happens that i entered 8th edition with what would become the two worst armies in the game.

Girlyman goes up in points from 360 to 385 ^^ i am sure that is not enough but a step in the right direction.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.

I consider myself a fluffy/casual player, and I don't mind that much if the units I field are not as PPM-efficient compared to what a competetive tournament player would put in a cookiecutter list.
However, when the units I like are made straight up worse than comparable units, something's wrong.
Like the Vanquisher being worse VS tanks than the regular Leman Russ - a measly 5pt reduction is an isult, as it shows they acknowledge the problem, but couldn't be arsed to actually solve it.

I don't run Earthshaker platforms, but I did appreciate them existing as a fluffy option to Basilisks. Making them more expensive than a Basilisk, which is a better unit in almost all ways, is an insult too.

 Esmer wrote:
So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?

What's the point in taking them, then?

When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.

 nordsturmking wrote:
Girlyman goes up in points from 360 to 385 ^^ i am sure that is not enough but a step in the right direction.

They should leave Guilliman costing as his cost now and give him 3 more wounds. Boom, fixed.

I have a theory on GW's balance logic, and why they've gone all 'Exterminatus' on certain units...

Looking at Malefic Lord, Conscripts and Earthshaker Batteries, all three have featured heavily in top table lists recently. All three have been smashed in the face with the nerfbat so hard they're no longer worth taking, compared to their alternatives. Why not just recost them to be balanced?

I think it's because certain players invested a lot into these units in order to have a significant tournament advantage, and GW wants to make these players think twice before investing money and paint on what are obviously overpowered units in the future.

Players might think twice before doubling down on spam, knowing that soon the nasty bat will be out and swinging again. I'm not advocating it as a tactic myself, but it would make sense...

 Luciferian wrote:
Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GW actually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.

A little of both. You can easily see similar weapons on models with similar BS are getting near the same costs. You can look at tanks with the same toughness and save, but different wounds and find that the point per wound is proportional. And then you'll find things like conscripts that got hit, because they may still have been seeing high use on top of recently gaining bonuses from the codex.

I see no problem in overnerfing things. I'll see a problem if in future balance patches they don't tweak them again to try to reach the "balanced" point.

If they just make things 80% more expensive and call it a day? Then thats a problem.