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.

bananathug wrote:

Thanks chapter tactics crew. They have complete access to all the ITC data which backs up my point.
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/12/18/chapter-tactics-50-year-in-review-and-which-factions-dominated-2017/

Of course as in previous editions I doubt all the logic and facts in the world will mean anything to most users here. They seem to like arguing with no sources or data and emotions first. Thankfully your local resident misanthrope has got you covered.

I really think your problem is AM is a really good faction and Tau are not (but you have hope that your codex will fix it)

Also, looking at the other thread as to how many competitive/tourney lists people on this forum face it's pretty clear that the majority of people are beer&pretzels here instead of hyper competitive metas.

But listening to these results it's clear that SM and guilliman needed a nerf and Chaos/IG/Eldar were perfectly fine...I'm sure CA was an attempt to balance the meta and not sell more primaris at all...

This is the exact same argument I made last edition about Tau and no one agreed with me. So good luck despite you bring right. In the balancing world of games there is something called "double penetration buff" I coined the term after CoH 1 team kept making the same mistake over and over again when balancing tanks. The two factions were always super close in balance but there were a few to be ironed out. At one point german tanks were way too good. So they decided to nerf them a little. At the same time people complained that the US tanks were no good. So they implemented both without thinking. They nerfed the germans tanks penetration and buffed the allies ones armor. This resulted in a double debuff to German effectiveness when they should have tried one or the other and then it sent the pendulum swinging way over away.

So this means that you are right. The IG are strong but many factions are also weak. If they both nerf the IG and buff the Tau or any army they might very well run into situations like the above. GW needs to decide what it wants to do now. Do they want all armies about the level of effectiveness of the current crop of tournament armies. Or do they want to nerf some armies down and some up. I made this exact same post last edition to no effect too. This is so they can determine a normal level of power an army should be capable of bringing. I'm running off the assumption they want to buff stuff up to the current competitive standard since it looks better for weaker armies than to see their bad army not changed and only see the outrage of those getting nerfed. As you are in fact IG I don't think you'll see too much nerfs since your not Tau (a whole different topic).

Not only are you right but its a philosophy of balance that should be adhered to by any game attempting to get balanced and on its feet. Also players like consistency. The blind favouritism and hateism going in cliques sucks. Yes this means if we want to balance armies perfectly (as humanly possible) that even space marines will only be as likely to win as anyone else and you need to be a better player. Yes this means factions you don't personally like will have to be given equal fair treatment. I once seen Reece say strong Tau are bad for the meta. He should have aid a strong imbalanced armies are bad for the meta.

Now why should any of the pubers care at all about this? Well balance flows from the top. A more balanced game at the top levels of play usually indicates a more healthy meta at the lower levels too. Monkey see monkey do. People here despite not being the most competitive for the most part can tell what are and aren't good armies in part because they hear it from more skilled players and also those skilled players can upload videos or even just talk to other players and help them to grasp of the current meta. And if your a puber who truly doesn't care about any of this than you don't care about a balanced or imbalanced game so why not make it as balanced as possible. Though I will say in a balanced meta you've got a much greater chance of those cool random epic wins happening more often than not.

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

Yeah. My impression on dakkadakka is that people are running around with lots of suits. I don't know that the way the game works is amenable to that kind of list right now.

Alcibiades wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

Yeah. My impression on dakkadakka is that people are running around with lots of suits. I don't know that the way the game works is amenable to that kind of list right now.

Funny he should mention orks. They are actually one of the stronger xenos right now. Though with the Eldar dex out I'm sure it will change. They were even winning some comp games too though I can't find the list used.

the_scotsman wrote:

What else would you be pointing to as overpriced? All their artillery is pretty solid, Hydras are actually half-decent at their job, all their named characters have a reason to exist for the first time in forever, flyers are good since the codex, heck even their melee units actually do their job now. There are a couple winners and losers on the regiment doctrine front, but not many, and mostly just because they're outshone by others (See Mordians by Cadians). A Vostroyan list took first place at a recent tournament in november, and they're like the one everyone points to as crap.

Obligatory "It wasn't actually a pure Vostroyan list" callout.

That's the list which was a Vostroyan Detachment for troops with random Grenade Launchers thrown on all the infantry squads and an illegal Cadian Detachment with Relic(Cadian Relic on a Primaris Psyker in a Spearhead Detachment filled with Manticores) and a Death Korps Outrider Detachment filled with Death Riders list as "auxiliary" detachments.

Pointing out that specific list as some kind of amazing example of gameplay isn't really appropriate. He had some of the best CC units that Guard have to offer in the Death Korps detachment, a subpar Vostroyan Detachment, and an illegal list for his Cadian Detachment.

 Gamgee wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, and I question how much of the problem with Tau is simply people not adapting their armies to 8th edition meta.

The best Tau army I have seen was Fire Warriors and drones. Blew away Orks left and right. Not perfect, but was certainly not horrible.

Yeah. My impression on dakkadakka is that people are running around with lots of suits. I don't know that the way the game works is amenable to that kind of list right now.

Funny he should mention orks. They are actually one of the stronger xenos right now. Though with the Eldar dex out I'm sure it will change. They were even winning some comp games too though I can't find the list used.

Orks have one build - Maximum Boyz.

As Tyranids/horde armies get more popular, their one strength, the ability to skew the matchups; will be taken away from them.