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.

Crimson Devil wrote:Additional playtesting.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Additional playtesting.

Quite probable actually. I mean we've heard that the stuff some play testers see doesn't make the final cut untouched so it's possible there are groups who only play test the final version and that's where they get the FAQ stuff from.

Just a follow on question: did they change Commissars without playtesting the changes or was errata-ing them completely out of the game entirely their objective?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:Additional playtesting.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Additional playtesting.

Quite probable actually. I mean we've heard that the stuff some play testers see doesn't make the final cut untouched so it's possible there are groups who only play test the final version and that's where they get the FAQ stuff from.

Just a follow on question: did they change Commissars without playtesting the changes or was errata-ing them completely out of the game entirely their objective?

"errata-ing them completely out of the game" is only your claim, and not likely anyone's actual attempt. GW sells models and anything to prevent the sale of models would be silly. They just swung the nerf hammer too hard. Things will level back out more in the future. Seriously, please stop using hyperbole to color GW's actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line to me is that GW has miscalculated the effect of BS 4+ against regular armies and then miscalculated the effect of the -1 to hit army trait in turn. We'll have to see how Altioc do vs IG post-Dark Reaper nerf. I think that without dark reapers, IG can dice-spam Altioc down, but maybe not. But as for my list and my buddy's UM list, IG lays waste to us easily.

The -1 to hit mechanic in its current form is a problem. I don't know how it'll be balanced in the long run, but in general the penalty definitely needs additional tweaking.

-1 to hit doesn't slow me down much, though. I think it's a good balancing factor, but Altioc needs to lose the DArk reaper "i win" button. There needs to be something out there to challenge the BS 4+ spam armies.

Sorry, I should have said "errata-ing them out of the game locally".

That's a verifiable fact and not at all hyperbole. Since the FAQ I have seen a single commissar on the table locally, and it was in a fluffy campaign game. We have four regular guard players that show up weekly.

Commissars are irrelevant with 10 man squads anyway. I don't see what the fuss is. My opponent don't even equip their guardsmen. They are literally there to buy time.

Martel732 wrote:
-1 to hit doesn't slow me down much, though. I think it's a good balancing factor, but Altioc needs to lose the DArk reaper "i win" button. There needs to be something out there to challenge the BS 4+ spam armies.

What, exactly, do you think that Alaitoc's Dark Reapers do to "challenge the BS 4+ spam armies"?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"errata-ing them completely out of the game" is only your claim, and not likely anyone's actual attempt. GW sells models and anything to prevent the sale of models would be silly. They just swung the nerf hammer too hard. Things will level back out more in the future. Seriously, please stop using hyperbole to color GW's actions.

YEah they might make them OP in future aigain. And then nerf them into uselessness. You aren't seriously expect them to make things even remotely balanced are you? Keep in mind a) they aren't competent enough to make anything remotely balanced b) aren't even interested in balance but wildly changing meta. Balance is bad for their sales. Swinging meta forcing tournament players to keep buying new models meanwhile is very good for their pockets.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
-1 to hit doesn't slow me down much, though. I think it's a good balancing factor, but Altioc needs to lose the DArk reaper "i win" button. There needs to be something out there to challenge the BS 4+ spam armies.

What, exactly, do you think that Alaitoc's Dark Reapers do to "challenge the BS 4+ spam armies"?

They kill them without being able to be killed efficiently in return.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sorry, I should have said "errata-ing them out of the game locally".

That's a verifiable fact and not at all hyperbole. Since the FAQ I have seen a single commissar on the table locally, and it was in a fluffy campaign game. We have four regular guard players that show up weekly.

Intent was to balance them, outcome was people shelving them. Intent will be to fix that and outcome remains to be seen.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sorry, I should have said "errata-ing them out of the game locally".

That's a verifiable fact and not at all hyperbole. Since the FAQ I have seen a single commissar on the table locally, and it was in a fluffy campaign game. We have four regular guard players that show up weekly.

Intent was to balance them, outcome was people shelving them. Intent will be to fix that and outcome remains to be seen.

Is it though? They've had several opportunities to fix shelved units (including another 4-5 months since the FAQ to re-fix Commissars, right through another Chapter Approved even). I'm not sure fixing useless stuff is as important as nerfing good stuff - hell, just look at the Grey Knights.

Unfortunately for a competitive meta, hammering down the "too goods" is far more important than fixing the bums.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"errata-ing them completely out of the game" is only your claim, and not likely anyone's actual attempt. GW sells models and anything to prevent the sale of models would be silly. They just swung the nerf hammer too hard. Things will level back out more in the future. Seriously, please stop using hyperbole to color GW's actions.

YEah they might make them OP in future aigain. And then nerf them into uselessness. You aren't seriously expect them to make things even remotely balanced are you? Keep in mind a) they aren't competent enough to make anything remotely balanced b) aren't even interested in balance but wildly changing meta. Balance is bad for their sales. Swinging meta forcing tournament players to keep buying new models meanwhile is very good for their pockets.

Are we really going to try and argue about competence when there isn't a single game that launches anything in a perfectly balanced state (and I'm ignoring "perfectly imbalanced" games like LoL who keep the meta shifting by intentionally over-buffing/nerfing things)? GW launched a new edition from scratch and brought in outside help to balance the game, but since every step involves humans (and "to err is to be human") it means that things will be missed and only caught when we go from a couple dozen people's involvement in the rules to thousands.

I feel like if sales were the only goal then they would never bother nerfing things, just release progressively more broken stuff. But they do try and balance stuff, so it shows that while they will never try to outright make something worthless (and thus make it unsellable) they will try and balance things as best they can to ensure people enjoy playing the game.

I'm tried of putting 14 lascannons in 2K lists just because of this one army: IG. It makes the meta boring. I can't even sub in missile launchers because of all the T8.

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately for a competitive meta, hammering down the "too goods" is far more important than fixing the bums.

if I had my 'druthers it'd be the other codexes getting fun and fluffy variety that IG got, rather than IG getting rareified into one or two monobuilds, with soup being the most viable way to run them. Poor Grey Knights... they should get better, imo. Things like Dark Reaper spam are bad, because that's one good unit, but if the whole IG codex is good, then every other codex should be equally good, you shouldn't haphazardly nerf Guard to drive them back down into the "one right way to play" competitive mindset, lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sorry, I should have said "errata-ing them out of the game locally".

That's a verifiable fact and not at all hyperbole. Since the FAQ I have seen a single commissar on the table locally, and it was in a fluffy campaign game. We have four regular guard players that show up weekly.

Intent was to balance them, outcome was people shelving them. Intent will be to fix that and outcome remains to be seen.

Is it though? They've had several opportunities to fix shelved units (including another 4-5 months since the FAQ to re-fix Commissars, right through another Chapter Approved even). I'm not sure fixing useless stuff is as important as nerfing good stuff - hell, just look at the Grey Knights.

And we know they don't have a fix for them planned how? Codexes get a FAQ on release, and then only see a new FAQ when something releases that effects them (see Daemons effecting CSM and Plague Marines) or on the twice yearly updates. If there is a fix it's in the next update (or the end of year one). Scheduled updates do mean that things could end up being sadly in need of fixing for longer, but it's easier for the devs to work into their development cycle than the old "whenever we get to it" method GW used to use.

I think IG can sustain small across the board increases, presuming that Dark Reapers take it in the balls. They are crushing my entire play group except for the guys who own Dark Reapers. It's really boring. The local admech player has conceded to IG on turn one three times in a row now. Enough is enough.

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line to me is that GW has miscalculated the effect of BS 4+ against regular armies and then miscalculated the effect of the -1 to hit army trait in turn. We'll have to see how Altioc do vs IG post-Dark Reaper nerf. I think that without dark reapers, IG can dice-spam Altioc down, but maybe not. But as for my list and my buddy's UM list, IG lays waste to us easily.

I personally think Alaitoc needs to have its trait changed. Eldar are in a unique position of being able to stack hit penalties to high heavens; Alaitoc rangers and hemlocks are -2 to hit by default, and you can easily buff up your big block of dark reapers to -3. None of the other -1 to hit factions are in a position to stack penalties so easily, the closest being Stygies who can only get up to -2 with their dragoons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sorry, I should have said "errata-ing them out of the game locally".

That's a verifiable fact and not at all hyperbole. Since the FAQ I have seen a single commissar on the table locally, and it was in a fluffy campaign game. We have four regular guard players that show up weekly.

Intent was to balance them, outcome was people shelving them. Intent will be to fix that and outcome remains to be seen.

Is it though? They've had several opportunities to fix shelved units (including another 4-5 months since the FAQ to re-fix Commissars, right through another Chapter Approved even). I'm not sure fixing useless stuff is as important as nerfing good stuff - hell, just look at the Grey Knights.

As a Chaos player I have to disagree with this. Obliterators and Pink Horrors are huge standouts for units that have been iterated from useless to fantastic in the process of 8th edition; I've heard skull cannons are considered much the same way in Khorne circles though I can't verify that myself.

Funny. None of that Eldar tech affects me at all for the most part. It's almost like BA are supposed to be the meta threat to -1 to hit armies. But Dark Reapers take away that meta threat. If anything, MORE to hit modifiers are needed to tune down shooting lists.

Army wide -1 to hit is problematic.

Getting -1 to hit from a psychic power, or a dark shroud, or equivalent is fine, though, because there is a decent counterplay.

A better solution to -1 to hit army wide i just cover save on all infantry without fly. So the reapers would be 2+ outside of ruins rather than -1 to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Funny. None of that Eldar tech affects me at all for the most part. It's almost like BA are supposed to be the meta threat to -1 to hit armies. But Dark Reapers take away that meta threat. If anything, MORE to hit modifiers are needed to tune down shooting lists.

Maybe bring back night fighting for turn 1. Also, set a rule that -1 to hit cannot stack from night-fighting and any other source. They would have to take away "inescapable accuracy" though, which absolutely should happen.

Actually, if you nerf down Dark Reaper damage, their other rules become perfectly fine.

Martel732 wrote:
and then miscalculated the effect of the -1 to hit army trait in turn. We'll have to see how Altioc do vs IG post-Dark Reaper nerf. I think that without dark reapers, IG can dice-spam Altioc down, but maybe not. But as for my list and my buddy's UM list, IG lays waste to us easily.

GW can't point itself out of the minus to hit problem. It's an army wide rule and unlikely to change. What they need to do is add in something that makes people think twice about using Alaitoc (or -1 to hit stuff in general). And, I think, the Orks completely ignoring minus to hit as an army wide (not clan) rule and perhaps another army with a trait doing something similar. Ork shooting would then be preserved and there is something to fear in the meta...well not that anyone feared Ork shooting that much, but something that shifts the scale would be helpful.

I'm confident I can do well vs Altioc if we take away dark reapers or rebalance them. Eldar crumble once they get in CC with BA and they don't have the infinite model count of an IG list. I'm gonna take a lot of hits, but then I'm gonna wreck a ton of sissy space elves.

I almost think the original intent of the -1 to hit outside of 12" rule was a way to discourage gunline armies that has sadly gone horribly wrong.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I almost think the original intent of the -1 to hit outside of 12" rule was a way to discourage gunline armies that has sadly gone horribly wrong.

Did it? Or just dark reapers? How many raven guard lists did you see dominating? Zero. Because -1 to hit alone doesn't cut it.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I almost think the original intent of the -1 to hit outside of 12" rule was a way to discourage gunline armies that has sadly gone horribly wrong.

Did it? Or just dark reapers? How many raven guard lists did you see dominating? Zero. Because -1 to hit alone doesn't cut it.

I was thinking more of how Eldar have mucked it up. On it's own in encourages less static, and arguably, more aggressive game play against such armies, but against Eldar it's just silly.

Eldar aren't THAT scary without their super unit. Even their fliers rocking a -2 aren't a big deal when you're putting a thunderhammer through their cockpit.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar aren't THAT scary without their super unit. Even their fliers rocking a -2 aren't a big deal when you're putting a thunderhammer through their cockpit.

Might matter a bit for Imperial Guard, but that's what they're designed to counter.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar aren't THAT scary without their super unit. Even their fliers rocking a -2 aren't a big deal when you're putting a thunderhammer through their cockpit.

You're not really countering my point by talking about melee when I mentioned that the intent was to discourage gun lines.

I agree with your point. Why would i counter it?

Martel732 wrote:
I agree with your point. Why would i counter it?

Your posts read more like you're trying to argue against my point more than anything, but maybe I'm still too sick to read properly. Regardless, I can only guess intent and if it's on point, it would go a long way to encourage less static play, though I have a feeling most of the armies running the -1 tactic will be gunlines anyways.