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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, lots changed, but I don't quite get your point.

Blast templates turned into number of shots (1 large blast is roughly 1d6, 2 large blasts roughly 2d6. This lines up well with the Manticore and Basilisk, who are 2 (average) and 1 large blast each).

Static or Swing damage is an artefact of 8th edition and never existed in 7th, so to bring it up in a comparison with 7th is more of a "LOOK OVER HERE" than it is a relevant argument. Tell me what stat in 7th matches the damage stat in 8th?

Battlefield roles have only been enhanced, not change. Do you really think the Manticore needs the same AP value as a Leman Russ's main gun for cheaper? I think AP-1 is perfectly appropriate and lines up with its 7th edition iteration nicely.

The issue is that the Manticore was intended as an antitank/anti fortress unit. In previous editions, especially 5th when the Manticore was introduced, Strength was all that mattered, AP was irrelevant, vehicles and buildings did not have armor saves. Now that they do, an AP-1 weapon, especially against heavier vehicles/buildings, is going to run into issues of efficacy in that role. To put it in context, an AP -1 Manticore would be generating wounds on T8 and lower structures and tanks at the same rate per point invested as a Quadlas Predator would if it were 322pts.

If people want it to be less "all-round" and more focused in that role, that may be one thing to explore, but I don't think AP-1 is going to do anything but see Manticores just dropped in favor of Basilisks and Battlecannons.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Dark Reapers hadn't made a large impact on the tournament scene at the time of CA. That's why they weren't on the radar, Dark Reapers didn't get a wait and see, they got a 'no data points to suggest they were over the top'. I know you won't go look at any report sites or anything of that nature but GW was using the available data points (tournament performance) to make those decisions. At that point there was no indication, from organized events, that Reapers were OTT. And the reason they haven't been addressed since then is because they're trying to address these issues in cycle now (per the warhammer community article).

Literally all this suggests to me is that GW shouldn't have used Tournament players or organizers if those players or organizers couldn't have started forecasting a unit that saw no change from its Index-->Codex becoming dominant.

I know you won't acknowledge that Conscripts and Commissars were dominant before their codex and you think they got nerfed one month after codex but what they got was nerfed several months after their index.

Yeah, no. You don't get to talk about that.

Commissars got nerfed the month after the Codex released. Conscripts saw a change from Index to Codex("Raw Recruits" didn't exist in the Index).

If they had wanted Commissars to get nerfed, they should have frigging done it before the Codex dropped. End of story.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Dark Reapers hadn't made a large impact on the tournament scene at the time of CA. That's why they weren't on the radar, Dark Reapers didn't get a wait and see, they got a 'no data points to suggest they were over the top'. I know you won't go look at any report sites or anything of that nature but GW was using the available data points (tournament performance) to make those decisions. At that point there was no indication, from organized events, that Reapers were OTT. And the reason they haven't been addressed since then is because they're trying to address these issues in cycle now (per the warhammer community article).

Literally all this suggests to me is that GW shouldn't have used Tournament players or organizers if those players or organizers couldn't have started forecasting a unit that saw no change from its Index-->Codex becoming dominant.

They got -1 to be hit and the Forewarned Strategem going from Index to Codex, for starters.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Dark Reapers hadn't made a large impact on the tournament scene at the time of CA. That's why they weren't on the radar, Dark Reapers didn't get a wait and see, they got a 'no data points to suggest they were over the top'. I know you won't go look at any report sites or anything of that nature but GW was using the available data points (tournament performance) to make those decisions. At that point there was no indication, from organized events, that Reapers were OTT. And the reason they haven't been addressed since then is because they're trying to address these issues in cycle now (per the warhammer community article).

Literally all this suggests to me is that GW shouldn't have used Tournament players or organizers if those players or organizers couldn't have started forecasting a unit that saw no change from its Index-->Codex becoming dominant.

They got -1 to be hit and the Forewarned Strategem going from Index to Codex, for starters.

And fire and fade... among other things.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Dark Reapers hadn't made a large impact on the tournament scene at the time of CA. That's why they weren't on the radar, Dark Reapers didn't get a wait and see, they got a 'no data points to suggest they were over the top'. I know you won't go look at any report sites or anything of that nature but GW was using the available data points (tournament performance) to make those decisions. At that point there was no indication, from organized events, that Reapers were OTT. And the reason they haven't been addressed since then is because they're trying to address these issues in cycle now (per the warhammer community article).

Literally all this suggests to me is that GW shouldn't have used Tournament players or organizers if those players or organizers couldn't have started forecasting a unit that saw no change from its Index-->Codex becoming dominant.

They got -1 to be hit and the Forewarned Strategem going from Index to Codex, for starters.

And the playtesters should have been aware of this, being that they're playtesters.

I'm trying to couch this in the nicest way possible, but it seems like playtesting dropped the ball here. It's a unit that should have been earmarked as a potential problem unit from the Index onwards.

The classic defense when you can't refute an argument:

"Oh yeah? What about <totally different topic>?"

We all know reapers are getting adjusted in the March update.

Martel732 wrote:
Bobby g got stomped out at lvo.

Yes, however, that may not be a factor him of him being bad, but the rest of the field being too good. Hard to say either way at this point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Well considering how heated this has gotten it makes me glad that I stepped out of here for a bit and just watched the madness unfold.

First off, for anyone who claims that we shouldn't see 5ppm Guardsmen, you're frankly just being silly at this point. Not only does this correct the internal balance issue inside of your own book between Conscripts, Guardsman and Veterans but it also means you're less likely to be dragged into soup lists as easily so all the bandwagon players can leave your army alone in favor of whatever new flavor of the month rolls out next.

You know what else would have done that?

"Battleline If"

Age of Sigmar literally has shown ways to tone down "soup" style lists. It has to deal with the way that Battleline units work, where a certain percentage of your army has to be made up of them and they have the term of "Battleline If" for a unit where if you're taking a pure army("Allegiance") it becomes Battleline rather than just being a normal unit. There's also units that become "Battleline If" when you have the Allegiance and a specific Hero.

Fair point. This WOULD help a lot in 40k and may be a future change. GW seems to be fond of trying out beta rule changes at tournaments so it may come in (likely not the next CA as I'll explain in the second half of this post, but in the future it's possible).

 Kanluwen wrote:

8th edition is the edition of constant updates and tweaks. EVERY army will be going through similar things (particularly after they have codexes based on how index only factions aren't really mucked with as much so far) and will see units go up and down in points as the game continues to evolve and grow.

Basically, this is going to be a reoccurring thing for some time to come and Guard aren't special. This isn't a malevolent plot against your army, it's just how the game works for every army.

What armies have gotten these tweaks?

Which armies between the launch of 8th edition and the 4-6 months before before CA dropped had an outright need to be fixed?

Because I think that's what people are forgetting here: these books are finished MONTHS in advance of release. CA's changes weren't a knee jerk reaction to the codex's performance, it was a follow up to data from the problems caused by the INDEX. In all likelihood the Guard codex was likely done and off at the printer's when they sat down to work on CA and realized there was a problem with Conscripts and Commissars that they hadn't noticed because they were likely not a focus of play testing (basically being the index entries ported over after all) so they fixed the problem in CA, and sent that off to the printers resulting in the way the changes came out.

If Dark Reapers were rocking everyone's socks off at the drop of 8th with their abilities and the Craftworld codex got rolled out right before CA, we would have seen the same exact thing happen there. It's just a matter of timing, not a conspiracy. Stop martyrying your army, it had issues that the rules team addressed (perhaps too far, but sometimes balancing takes time to work out a unit's sweet spot gameplay wise) and the balances we'll be seeing now are based on the codex, not the index.

Its amazing to me that some people actually think the tourney META drives whats OP or unbalanced.

Its "whack a mole". Dude creates one WAAC list. It get Nerfed. He creates another. Nevermind he may have a complete mastery of tactics.

Such small vision.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Fair point. This WOULD help a lot in 40k and may be a future change. GW seems to be fond of trying out beta rule changes at tournaments so it may come in (likely not the next CA as I'll explain in the second half of this post, but in the future it's possible).

It's something that they've done in AoS. It works. It's stupid that their brand new edition, which modeled itself in a lot of ways after AoS, didn't have it.

Which armies between the launch of 8th edition and the 4-6 months before before CA dropped had an outright need to be fixed?

Because I think that's what people are forgetting here: these books are finished MONTHS in advance of release. CA's changes weren't a knee jerk reaction to the codex's performance, it was a follow up to data from the problems caused by the INDEX. In all likelihood the Guard codex was likely done and off at the printer's when they sat down to work on CA and realized there was a problem with Conscripts and Commissars that they hadn't noticed because they were likely not a focus of play testing (basically being the index entries ported over after all) so they fixed the problem in CA, and sent that off to the printers resulting in the way the changes came out.

If Dark Reapers were rocking everyone's socks off at the drop of 8th with their abilities and the Craftworld codex got rolled out right before CA, we would have seen the same exact thing happen there. It's just a matter of timing, not a conspiracy. Stop martyrying your army, it had issues that the rules team addressed (perhaps too far, but sometimes balancing takes time to work out a unit's sweet spot gameplay wise) and the balances we'll be seeing now are based on the codex, not the index.

The problem with this idea is that it ignores that the "Raw Recruits" rule was such a half-assed thing(Literally--it's "Roll a D6, on a 4+ Orders work on this unit"), it likely was (as you said) done and off to the printer's...yet it was still worked in.
Same with the Command Squads change.

It would have been a big ol' heap of nothing to ensure that a few more tweaks could have been done. Things like "Conscripts require an Imperial Guard Warlord" or things like that.

A battalion for 180 points is just too cheap. Along with the relic and warlord trait it is pushing into the must include territory. Additionally for 36 5+ wounds, 30-60 shots, good mobility with run, run, run, obsec and 40" of deepstrike denial it has an outsized impact on too many phases of the game.

Marines are another army that got adjusted (razors, dual ac, storm ravens.) R&H go burned to the ground (no more malific lords anywhere).

Literally 3 gulliman lists made the top 100 at LVO (and that's because GW for some reason wanted to sell Fire Raptors). I'm not sure that's indicative of a unit that needs further nerfs and shows that GW swings the bat against even their precious space marines.

What if we made manticores/basilisks str 16 -1 ap. If that's not enough maybe a special rule "armor piercing shells" which increases their ap to -2 against anything with the vehicle/monster keyword?

Being able to wound anything out there on a 2 would make up for the reduced ap vs other targets and boosting that to a -2 against vehicles would help them in their proposed role.

Mortar teams need to be 18 points. 11 points for 3.5 bolter no LOS, 48" shots is just too cheap. Throw in the different army strats and no wonder they are in every soup list. The only thing coming close to that are storm bolter armed sisters at rapid fire range at 11 but they have a range of 12" less wounds but do have a 3+ BS.

Didn't dark reapers get cheaper between index and codex? I know they got strats that protect them from 1st round alphas, got cheaper transports to protect them, deepstrike and got a -1 to hit. If those aren't changes please give them to my black templars and we'll call it even.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Fair point. This WOULD help a lot in 40k and may be a future change. GW seems to be fond of trying out beta rule changes at tournaments so it may come in (likely not the next CA as I'll explain in the second half of this post, but in the future it's possible).

It's something that they've done in AoS. It works. It's stupid that their brand new edition, which modeled itself in a lot of ways after AoS, didn't have it.

Which armies between the launch of 8th edition and the 4-6 months before before CA dropped had an outright need to be fixed?

Because I think that's what people are forgetting here: these books are finished MONTHS in advance of release. CA's changes weren't a knee jerk reaction to the codex's performance, it was a follow up to data from the problems caused by the INDEX. In all likelihood the Guard codex was likely done and off at the printer's when they sat down to work on CA and realized there was a problem with Conscripts and Commissars that they hadn't noticed because they were likely not a focus of play testing (basically being the index entries ported over after all) so they fixed the problem in CA, and sent that off to the printers resulting in the way the changes came out.

If Dark Reapers were rocking everyone's socks off at the drop of 8th with their abilities and the Craftworld codex got rolled out right before CA, we would have seen the same exact thing happen there. It's just a matter of timing, not a conspiracy. Stop martyrying your army, it had issues that the rules team addressed (perhaps too far, but sometimes balancing takes time to work out a unit's sweet spot gameplay wise) and the balances we'll be seeing now are based on the codex, not the index.

The problem with this idea is that it ignores that the "Raw Recruits" rule was such a half-assed thing(Literally--it's "Roll a D6, on a 4+ Orders work on this unit"), it likely was (as you said) done and off to the printer's...yet it was still worked in.
Same with the Command Squads change.

It would have been a big ol' heap of nothing to ensure that a few more tweaks could have been done. Things like "Conscripts require an Imperial Guard Warlord" or things like that.

Maybe, but we honestly don't know how far the gap was between one book being worked on and the other.

That said, the change to the game to make it less soupy would be great, I won't deny that in the least, but since we didn't get that (perhaps it won't happen until the last codex drops if they're trying to keep from punishing players who play stuff like Sisters of Silence or Inquisition) then it's kind of a moot point. Hypotheticals on how they can fix the core game are just that: hypothetical.

 Byte wrote:
Its amazing to me that some people actually think the tourney META drives whats OP or unbalanced.

Its "whack a mole". Dude creates one WAAC list. It get Nerfed. He creates another. Nevermind he may have a complete mastery of tactics.

Such small vision.

These people are not tactical savants. The math says as much and it isn't hard to spot.

The REAL tacticians? The guy with the fort and poxwalkers. THAT was an intelligent list that exploited a hole.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

fe40k wrote:

Commissars are hard to find a place for, sure; but something DID need to be done about cheapo, morale immune, massive squads receiving perfect orders everytime.

Anything else?

So is Synapse getting nerfed? The Iyanden trait?

Those armies don't exactly have access to good cheap ranged units. Guardians are 4 ppm more expensive than conscripts with better WS/BS, but a much shorter weapon range (12"). Termagaunts are also 4ppm, but once again, with a worse weapon range (12") and slightly better BS, while getting a worse armor save (6+). Against equal points of either of those guardsmen will outshoot them easily.

Termagants have access to things like the "Always counts as being in cover" trait, making the "worse armor save" thing a nonstarter for an argument. Guardians having a "much shorter weapon range" is offset by the fact that they are Assault rather than Rapid Fire; meaning static numbers of shots.

Rapidfire weapons have a fixed number too, what's your point? They get 2 at 12" (like guardians) but then they also get 1 at 13-24" (unlike guardians). I don't know if you paid attention to that bit in the rulebook.

As for 'nids, the always in cover has a lot of limitations. It means using cover is useless (while guardsmen then get a 4+ from cover still), and they can't advance or charge without losing the benefit. Not exactly equal, especially since to get in range the 'gaunts will be shot first by the guardsmen every time (or lose their cover bonus) because their weapon is only 12", which is huge. Starting at 25" then advancing in is unlikely too, as you need a perfect 6, and then the 'gaunts get a -1 to hit (guardians too, except for battle focus) the difference between 12" and 24" is huge which I don't think you realize.

At 3PPM, conscripts were hands down the best troops. At 4ppm they're still ok, just overshadowed by guardsmen who are also 4ppm. Guardsmen could be 5ppm and still be very solid troops.

I would do a "fixed that for you", but we're not supposed to. So real quick rundown...

At 3ppm, Conscripts were "hands down the best troops" for people taking allied detachments of Guard from the Index for their soup lists and for people who were playing against individuals who refused to adapt to the new game mechanics. Because of the fact that Conscripts were 3ppm and came equipped with all Lasguns, you would see people take big blobs of Conscripts, an Officer, and Commissars--allowing for the Conscripts to get FRFSRF. It was a relatively small outlay of points for something that, for whatever dumb reason, people legitimately saw as scary (remember that early 8th there were people seriously crying about Guard infantry being able to kill Land Raiders or Knights with their lasguns for whatever stupid reason) and would focus down on.

The Codex hits, Conscripts get hit with the "Can only accept Orders on a roll of 4" change--which nobody really complained about that, thinking it was a good fix to one issue(people whining that "Conscripts have too much damage output!" ) as it made them more of the meatshield unit they're meant to be.
A month later, Conscripts get bumped to 4 points and Commissars get gutted; nobody seriously takes either again.

Commisars got their heavy handed nerf because they're incredibly cheap and easy to spam for morale immunity.

Conscripts, once again, had the highest damage output of any troop that guard could get, along with being incredibly cheap at the time, which made them the best troop period. Combined with commisars autopass morale, and you had a durable (for the price) group of units that blocked anything from getting close. What else even came close to that? What other troop did the IG have that was anywhere near as effective? Troops aren't there to dish out damage (although conscripts did). Also, no one was complaining that conscripts could kill land raiders, that's a strawman. People complained that they were nigh impossible to remove effectively (considering they only ever took 1 lose from morale due to the commisar) and only cost 3ppm, please stop aruging like everyone complaining about conscripts/commisars personally had a Titan blow up solely because of conscripts.

(also, AP-3 equals an AP1 weapon. AP4 = -1, AP3= -2, AP1 = -3. AP3 =/= AP-3 in the new system, and every non melee weapon has followed this rule, even Krak and autocannons)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Well considering how heated this has gotten it makes me glad that I stepped out of here for a bit and just watched the madness unfold.

First off, for anyone who claims that we shouldn't see 5ppm Guardsmen, you're frankly just being silly at this point. Not only does this correct the internal balance issue inside of your own book between Conscripts, Guardsman and Veterans but it also means you're less likely to be dragged into soup lists as easily so all the bandwagon players can leave your army alone in favor of whatever new flavor of the month rolls out next.

You know what else would have done that?

"Battleline If"

Age of Sigmar literally has shown ways to tone down "soup" style lists. It has to deal with the way that Battleline units work, where a certain percentage of your army has to be made up of them and they have the term of "Battleline If" for a unit where if you're taking a pure army("Allegiance") it becomes Battleline rather than just being a normal unit. There's also units that become "Battleline If" when you have the Allegiance and a specific Hero.

8th edition is the edition of constant updates and tweaks. EVERY army will be going through similar things (particularly after they have codexes based on how index only factions aren't really mucked with as much so far) and will see units go up and down in points as the game continues to evolve and grow.

Basically, this is going to be a reoccurring thing for some time to come and Guard aren't special. This isn't a malevolent plot against your army, it's just how the game works for every army.

What armies have gotten these tweaks?

Space Marines got the rules of the game fundamentally changed in order to stop their premier broken unit.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Its amazing to me that some people actually think the tourney META drives whats OP or unbalanced.

Its "whack a mole". Dude creates one WAAC list. It get Nerfed. He creates another. Nevermind he may have a complete mastery of tactics.

Such small vision.

These people are not tactical savants. The math says as much and it isn't hard to spot.

The REAL tacticians? The guy with the fort and poxwalkers. THAT was an intelligent list that exploited a hole.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Mathhammer is a shame. Its a dice game. Tactics is a huge part of this game. How long have you actually played 40k? You sound like a batrep commando.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Maybe, but we honestly don't know how far the gap was between one book being worked on and the other.

If they were such an issue from the Index onwards, you'd think they would have been a key unit identified for changes.

That said, the change to the game to make it less soupy would be great, I won't deny that in the least, but since we didn't get that (perhaps it won't happen until the last codex drops if they're trying to keep from punishing players who play stuff like Sisters of Silence or Inquisition) then it's kind of a moot point. Hypotheticals on how they can fix the core game are just that: hypothetical.

I mean, I think there's not really going to be a system that won't affect things like Sisters of Silence(at least until they have their own full book). No matter how it goes it's gonna hurt the small-ish lists. I could see Inquisitors getting a rule like the new Harbingers and stuff.

 Byte wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Its amazing to me that some people actually think the tourney META drives whats OP or unbalanced.

Its "whack a mole". Dude creates one WAAC list. It get Nerfed. He creates another. Nevermind he may have a complete mastery of tactics.

Such small vision.

These people are not tactical savants. The math says as much and it isn't hard to spot.

The REAL tacticians? The guy with the fort and poxwalkers. THAT was an intelligent list that exploited a hole.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Mathhammer is a shame. Its a dice game. Tactics is a huge part of this game. How long have you actually played 40k? You sound like a batrep commando.

Mathhammer helps you make intelligent decisions in list building and during gameplay. You shouldn't discount it completely, nor should you take it as law, because you're right that this is a dice game and anything can happen. Knowing the averages, however, and knowing when you're bating above and below, works in your favor.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Maybe, but we honestly don't know how far the gap was between one book being worked on and the other.

If they were such an issue from the Index onwards, you'd think they would have been a key unit identified for changes.

It's possible that not all the data was in at the time, or perhaps there was a large event between when the Guard book and the CA book being worked on that pointed out there was an issue with Commissars as a whole. Without direct studio comment it's hard to know, but "should have put it in the codex" is just wishful thinking considering the turn around time between finishing the books and release.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That said, the change to the game to make it less soupy would be great, I won't deny that in the least, but since we didn't get that (perhaps it won't happen until the last codex drops if they're trying to keep from punishing players who play stuff like Sisters of Silence or Inquisition) then it's kind of a moot point. Hypotheticals on how they can fix the core game are just that: hypothetical.

I mean, I think there's not really going to be a system that won't affect things like Sisters of Silence(at least until they have their own full book). No matter how it goes it's gonna hurt the small-ish lists. I could see Inquisitors getting a rule like the new Harbingers and stuff.

It's just an assumption on my part on why they may have chosen to not rolled out the Sigmar style ruleset. Or it was an intentional thing since 40k faction lines are more blurred than Sigmar ones and the side-effect is the soup we see on the table. It's hard to pin down designer intent so all I can do is guess.

Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, lots changed, but I don't quite get your point.

Blast templates turned into number of shots (1 large blast is roughly 1d6, 2 large blasts roughly 2d6. This lines up well with the Manticore and Basilisk, who are 2 (average) and 1 large blast each).

Static or Swing damage is an artefact of 8th edition and never existed in 7th, so to bring it up in a comparison with 7th is more of a "LOOK OVER HERE" than it is a relevant argument. Tell me what stat in 7th matches the damage stat in 8th?

Battlefield roles have only been enhanced, not change. Do you really think the Manticore needs the same AP value as a Leman Russ's main gun for cheaper? I think AP-1 is perfectly appropriate and lines up with its 7th edition iteration nicely.

The issue is that the Manticore was intended as an antitank/anti fortress unit. In previous editions, especially 5th when the Manticore was introduced, Strength was all that mattered, AP was irrelevant, vehicles and buildings did not have armor saves. Now that they do, an AP-1 weapon, especially against heavier vehicles/buildings, is going to run into issues of efficacy in that role. To put it in context, an AP -1 Manticore would be generating wounds on T8 and lower structures and tanks at the same rate per point invested as a Quadlas Predator would if it were 322pts.

If people want it to be less "all-round" and more focused in that role, that may be one thing to explore, but I don't think AP-1 is going to do anything but see Manticores just dropped in favor of Basilisks and Battlecannons.

Traditional 8th Edition anti-tank units have low shots but high Damage.

The manticore has high shots but low damage.

Maybe it was a certain way when it was introduced in 5th, but it's obviously not intended to be that way now. If you want to break fortresses and tanks in 8th, you give it like 2d3 shots and make it do d6 min 3 damage or something (I have no idea if that's good or not, but it's an example).

Math hammer also helps you make sure you've got an efficient tool for the scenarios you're likely to see.

And stop talking about tactics when you play an army that ignores the movement phase. Target priority isn't tactics, it's you playing whack-a-mole with the most dangerous thing on the table at that given moment.

 andysonic1 wrote:

 Byte wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Its amazing to me that some people actually think the tourney META drives whats OP or unbalanced.

Its "whack a mole". Dude creates one WAAC list. It get Nerfed. He creates another. Nevermind he may have a complete mastery of tactics.

Such small vision.

These people are not tactical savants. The math says as much and it isn't hard to spot.

The REAL tacticians? The guy with the fort and poxwalkers. THAT was an intelligent list that exploited a hole.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Mathhammer is a shame. Its a dice game. Tactics is a huge part of this game. How long have you actually played 40k? You sound like a batrep commando.

Mathhammer helps you make intelligent decisions in list building and during gameplay. You shouldn't discount it completely, nor should you take it as law, because you're right that this is a dice game and anything can happen. Knowing the averages, however, and knowing when you're bating above and below, works in your favor.

Generally where people's application of math falls apart is in an expectation of something probably to happen multiple times. "I kill this thing 2/3rds of the time with this unit, so I should 'probably' kill 2 of them with these two units."

 LunarSol wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:

 Byte wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Its amazing to me that some people actually think the tourney META drives whats OP or unbalanced.

Its "whack a mole". Dude creates one WAAC list. It get Nerfed. He creates another. Nevermind he may have a complete mastery of tactics.

Such small vision.

These people are not tactical savants. The math says as much and it isn't hard to spot.

The REAL tacticians? The guy with the fort and poxwalkers. THAT was an intelligent list that exploited a hole.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Mathhammer is a shame. Its a dice game. Tactics is a huge part of this game. How long have you actually played 40k? You sound like a batrep commando.

Mathhammer helps you make intelligent decisions in list building and during gameplay. You shouldn't discount it completely, nor should you take it as law, because you're right that this is a dice game and anything can happen. Knowing the averages, however, and knowing when you're bating above and below, works in your favor.

Generally where people's application of math falls apart is in an expectation of something probably to happen multiple times. "I kill this thing 2/3rds of the time with this unit, so I should 'probably' kill 2 of them with these two units."

That's not math hammer, that's scenario hammer.

Math hammer is about overall efficiency. Is your weapon efficient against the desired target? Yes or no? This is a quantifiable statement.

I do think the difference between a good player and a great player is the ability to math-hammer, and then the ability to see past it.

I think a good player can calculate averages fairly well, and that informs his firepower and movement and whatnot.

I think a great player does the same thing, but also asks himself what his plan is if a critical roll (e.g. I must knock out that land raider in the movement phase to charge the contents in the assault phase!) goes awry (do I have more lascannons than planned for pointed at it? Do I have some other way of killing it?).

If the dice don't go a good player's way, his plan falls apart. If the dice don't go a great player's way, his backup plan kicks into motion and he can still hobble along and at least accomplish some things. And then his dice betray him again and he loses anyways

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's just an assumption on my part on why they may have chosen to not rolled out the Sigmar style ruleset. Or it was an intentional thing since 40k faction lines are more blurred than Sigmar ones and the side-effect is the soup we see on the table. It's hard to pin down designer intent so all I can do is guess.

I assume its in no small part because 40k's simply got too many factions to support and too many of them lack meaningful gameplay and aesthetic variety anyway. I've always seen the line between marines and guard as a huge setting failure. 8th just seems to be the point where they finally bit the bullet and stopped trying to make 5 armies out of the same kit.

Honestly the only things I use mathhammer for is comparing two near identical choices for TAC purposes. A perfect example of this is power swords vs power mauls for Sisters. Swords are better if you're S4, but on S3 Sisters the Mauls are better the TAC choice.

Some people take it a little too far in my opinion (basically using it to write their entire list based on mathematical efficiency and not unit role or even how to use them effectively) and that's where it all gets a little silly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Maybe, but we honestly don't know how far the gap was between one book being worked on and the other.

If they were such an issue from the Index onwards, you'd think they would have been a key unit identified for changes.

It's possible that not all the data was in at the time, or perhaps there was a large event between when the Guard book and the CA book being worked on that pointed out there was an issue with Commissars as a whole. Without direct studio comment it's hard to know, but "should have put it in the codex" is just wishful thinking considering the turn around time between finishing the books and release.

With how big of a change they had ready to go on the Commissars within the course of 15 days? I'm sorry, I just can't buy into that. Yes yes yes--"It was problems from the Index onwards! Books are quick turnaround!".
We had the Indexes released in what, June/July?
Guard book went up for preorder on September 30th, released on October 7th. FAQ that gutted Commissars was the 22nd.

There is quite a bit of time there where things could have been looked at.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That said, the change to the game to make it less soupy would be great, I won't deny that in the least, but since we didn't get that (perhaps it won't happen until the last codex drops if they're trying to keep from punishing players who play stuff like Sisters of Silence or Inquisition) then it's kind of a moot point. Hypotheticals on how they can fix the core game are just that: hypothetical.

I mean, I think there's not really going to be a system that won't affect things like Sisters of Silence(at least until they have their own full book). No matter how it goes it's gonna hurt the small-ish lists. I could see Inquisitors getting a rule like the new Harbingers and stuff.

It's just an assumption on my part on why they may have chosen to not rolled out the Sigmar style ruleset. Or it was an intentional thing since 40k faction lines are more blurred than Sigmar ones and the side-effect is the soup we see on the table. It's hard to pin down designer intent so all I can do is guess.

They're not as blurred as you seem to think, honestly.

You have the "faction" keywords that would play a part in this kind of a deal. I.e., you get LESS benefits for taking an all Imperium army than you would one where all the Faction keywords tick the same box.

 Byte wrote:


I wholeheartedly disagree. Mathhammer is a shame. Its a dice game. Tactics is a huge part of this game. How long have you actually played 40k? You sound like a batrep commando.

Uhh, let's see...24 years.

Do you mean math hammer is a sham? Math hammer isn't the be-all end-all, no, but it guides lots of decisions. Only a fool uses it exclusively. But you can't seriously sit here and tell me Dark Reapers are properly costed and that it's "tactics" to cram as many of them as possible into a list aside from a unit of SS and some psychic support.

The credit I give to the top LVO players is using the army efficiently well on the table - thinking fast, moving precisely, and targeting properly. I'm not giving them credit as geniuses for spamming a couple of units.

 LunarSol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's just an assumption on my part on why they may have chosen to not rolled out the Sigmar style ruleset. Or it was an intentional thing since 40k faction lines are more blurred than Sigmar ones and the side-effect is the soup we see on the table. It's hard to pin down designer intent so all I can do is guess.

I assume its in no small part because 40k's simply got too many factions to support and too many of them lack meaningful gameplay and aesthetic variety anyway. I've always seen the line between marines and guard as a huge setting failure. 8th just seems to be the point where they finally bit the bullet and stopped trying to make 5 armies out of the same kit.

I don't think it has anything to do with "too many factions" when AoS has factions that are literally two different units(Shadowblades consist of just Dark Riders and Assassins).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do think the difference between a good player and a great player is the ability to math-hammer, and then the ability to see past it.

I think a good player can calculate averages fairly well, and that informs his firepower and movement and whatnot.

I think a great player does the same thing, but also asks himself what his plan is if a critical roll (e.g. I must knock out that land raider in the movement phase to charge the contents in the assault phase!) goes awry (do I have more lascannons than planned for pointed at it? Do I have some other way of killing it?).

If the dice don't go a good player's way, his plan falls apart. If the dice don't go a great player's way, his backup plan kicks into motion and he can still hobble along and at least accomplish some things. And then his dice betray him again and he loses anyways

A good player will scoop when things go poorly, a great player will try and turn it around despite being on the back foot. I won't claim to be a great player, but I've had my moments. Like taking a game versus Necrons in 7th edition and winning thanks to having 3 Sisters on the table holding objectives versus his army that lost like 5 models in total.

It's definitely a mentality thing to try and find ways to salvage poor dice rolls, unexpected mishaps and general warp based shenanigans that pushes someone past being "good" to being "great".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Maybe, but we honestly don't know how far the gap was between one book being worked on and the other.

If they were such an issue from the Index onwards, you'd think they would have been a key unit identified for changes.

It's possible that not all the data was in at the time, or perhaps there was a large event between when the Guard book and the CA book being worked on that pointed out there was an issue with Commissars as a whole. Without direct studio comment it's hard to know, but "should have put it in the codex" is just wishful thinking considering the turn around time between finishing the books and release.

With how big of a change they had ready to go on the Commissars within the course of 15 days? I'm sorry, I just can't buy into that. Yes yes yes--"It was problems from the Index onwards! Books are quick turnaround!".
We had the Indexes released in what, June/July?
Guard book went up for preorder on September 30th, released on October 7th. FAQ that gutted Commissars was the 22nd.

There is quite a bit of time there where things could have been looked at.

15 days? Citation needed if that was the turn around between when the Guard codex was finished and the CA book was worked on. For all we know Guard may have been done before 8th was ready for release. Seriously, please quite assuming that the gutting was done directly to hurt your codex and pretending the issue didn't start with the Index.