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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

Well heres the thing - it doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what we have now. Which it would be - significantly. Then we can make small adjustments to points/rules/ect because that is all that will be required. In regards to indirect fire sometimes being useless - this isn't a problem specific to manitcores - lots of units abilities are useless vs certain opponents but you still have to pay for them. Indirect fire is extremely powerful in 95% of the game you will play though - even if you can't hide you tank you can shoot things that are hiding...actually - it's useful in just about every game you will play in 40k - what are you talking about?

I don't think it'd be that much better than what we have now. Balancing with math ignoring context is just as crippling a sin as balancing around context and ignoring math. You're literally saying "IGNORE CONTEXT, USE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST!" while the competing method is "USE CONTEXT, IGNORE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST" and it's essentially the same thing. Both are bad. Use both. Use math, and context, to adjust things.

And "you can shoot at things your opponent is hiding" depends a lot on your opponent trying to hide something. Any ability that you have that depends on your opponents actions being a certain way to be useful is a good ability, because it means that decisions your opponent makes have a difference. For example, I play a Slaanesh daemons army. I essentially never hide, because I have to get into CC to do anything. I recently played an Admech army with tons and tons of shooting (knight w/ 2 armigers were his only CC; otherwise it was 3 5-man skitarii squads, 2 robots, and 4 onagers). I just went wheeling across the table and caught everything in combat ASAP, because that's what happens when you bring no screens. A Manticore's ability to indirect fire would have been much MUCH less useful than a Leman Russ's Toughness 8 in that game, just as an example.

Context.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ash87 wrote:

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Help me understand what you are saying because you are calling puretide a tax. It is the opposite - puretide is a free command point generator. You are going to use a reroll in the game (the majority of my command points go to rerolls) so spending 1 command point to get puretide is just spending that command point to get the reoll up front (which you would have used anyways) plus it give bonus CP through the game. I feel like it will generate about 2 on average. Sometimes none - sometimes like the last game I used it youll end the game with more CP than you started with - because it even works on opponents stratagems.

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc their are non math factors - like tactics - list design - ect. I'm happy to lose to someones tactics - It might actually teach me something. I am not happy to lose to a unit because it's bonkers OP and I can prove it mathematically. Like a shiningspear - has one of the highest PPD in the game - highest move speeds - and high defense - and it costs about 30% less than similar units of it's type. It is clearly undercosted.

So, if there are non-math factors, presumably you should be balancing the game around the people who understand those factors, rather than pure math that ignores those factors?

Context is important. How good, or not good, a unit is depends entirely on the context in which it exists. Math inherently lacks context. Math is a good place to get started (e.g. based on your example I think we should take a strong look at shining spears) but pure math without context should never be used to balance a game.

Otherwise the Manticore would either be cheap as chips for what it does (because Indirect Fire is free and there's tons of LOS blocking terrain), too expensive (because Indirect Fire is priced but there's no LOS blocking terrain), or you put it at an average and then it seems OP when it works and isn't OP when it doesn't - an average which can't really be determined by pure math, imo.

Well heres the thing - it doesn't need to be perfect - it just needs to be better than what we have now. Which it would be - significantly. Then we can make small adjustments to points/rules/ect because that is all that will be required. In regards to indirect fire sometimes being useless - this isn't a problem specific to manitcores - lots of units abilities are useless vs certain opponents but you still have to pay for them. Indirect fire is extremely powerful in 95% of the game you will play though - even if you can't hide you tank you can shoot things that are hiding...actually - it's useful in just about every game you will play in 40k - what are you talking about?

I don't think it'd be that much better than what we have now. Balancing with math ignoring context is just as crippling a sin as balancing around context and ignoring math. You're literally saying "IGNORE CONTEXT, USE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST!" while the competing method is "USE CONTEXT, IGNORE MATH, AND THEN ADJUST" and it's essentially the same thing. Both are bad. Use both. Use math, and context, to adjust things.

And "you can shoot at things your opponent is hiding" depends a lot on your opponent trying to hide something. Any ability that you have that depends on your opponents actions being a certain way to be useful is a good ability, because it means that decisions your opponent makes have a difference. For example, I play a Slaanesh daemons army. I essentially never hide, because I have to get into CC to do anything. I recently played an Admech army with tons and tons of shooting (knight w/ 2 armigers were his only CC; otherwise it was 3 5-man skitarii squads, 2 robots, and 4 onagers). I just went wheeling across the table and caught everything in combat ASAP, because that's what happens when you bring no screens. A Manticore's ability to indirect fire would have been much MUCH less useful than a Leman Russ's Toughness 8 in that game, just as an example.

Context.

First - our current game ignores context - it just also ignores mathematical balance as well. I'm not suggesting we ignore context - just that we start from a state of mathematical balance (this is what the index armies should have been.) Then you play test the game and identify problem units and create reasonable fixes like (conscripts can't take orders and lose 3 models every-time a commissar has to route them) instead of (conscripts can take orders on a 4+ but the cost as much an an infantry unit and can only be taken in units of 30 and commissars now hurt the unit instead of benefit them.)

Second - Russes are good - there are going to be situations the russ is better - sometimes the manticore. Their point costs should be similar. Manticores shouldn't be 30-40 points less.

 Xenomancers wrote:
First - our current game ignores context - it just also ignores mathematical balance as well. I'm not suggesting we ignore context - just that we start from a state of mathematical balance (this is what the index armies should have been.) Then you play test the game and identify problem units and create reasonable fixes like (conscripts can't take orders and lose 3 models every-time a commissar has to route them) instead of (conscripts can take orders on a 4+ but the cost as much an an infantry unit and can only be taken in units of 30 and commissars now hurt the unit instead of benefit them.)

Second - Russes are good - there are going to be situations the russ is better - sometimes the manticore. Their point costs should be similar. Manticores shouldn't be 30-40 points less.

I don't think the current game ignores context. I think using the tournament victories to balance the game is using context.

Manticores are 143 and Russes are 152 - a 9 point difference.

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First - our current game ignores context - it just also ignores mathematical balance as well. I'm not suggesting we ignore context - just that we start from a state of mathematical balance (this is what the index armies should have been.) Then you play test the game and identify problem units and create reasonable fixes like (conscripts can't take orders and lose 3 models every-time a commissar has to route them) instead of (conscripts can take orders on a 4+ but the cost as much an an infantry unit and can only be taken in units of 30 and commissars now hurt the unit instead of benefit them.)

Second - Russes are good - there are going to be situations the russ is better - sometimes the manticore. Their point costs should be similar. Manticores shouldn't be 30-40 points less.

I don't think the current game ignores context. I think using the tournament victories to balance the game is using context.

Manticores are 143 and Russes are 152 - a 9 point difference.

I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ash87 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ash87 wrote:
So, first post...

I don't think there is a Huge issue with CP, but it could use some adjustment. My only option for CP regeneration as Tau is to use the Puretide Engram, which has become an Auto-take for most Tau players by my understanding, though it's kind of a crummy piece of hardware. 6+ to get a CP back just doesn't work out in your favor 85% of the time, which means I've had games where I had 12 CP using a batallion, but still managed to not get a single CP back from mine or my opponents used strats. And that, by my understanding, is what you get when you have an ability or item that regens CP off opponent's strats.

There are CP straight, regen items and abilities... and yeah I think that is pretty cheesy, but ultimately I've played against few things this edition that I thought were just unfair... and none of that was tied to Strats or CP.

When I play my CP is based on the number of dudes I take, so I'll have an elite army with fewer points and a huge sprawling army with more. Some people have pointed out that is a bit backwards and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. When I take 3 vanguards of Farsight Enclave, with only battlesuits and markers, it would make more sense that they'd have more tricks than an army of 60 fire warriors... Kinda maybe? Playing devils advocate, the smaller group would have less support in the field due to the army size so they'd have fewer resources... but then they'd likewise be better equipped to deal with situations and could make more out of less...

I don't know, maybe discount strats with certain smaller elite armies, as some kind of compromise here?

I don't have a lot of Data to present here to back up my opinions, just experience with the games I've played so, take that as you will.

Puretide is auto include because it is literally free. It gives you a reroll during the game (which costs 1 CP) and you can get an additional relic for 1 CP. It is essnetially free and might get you a few command points back during the game. There is no reason not to take it.

I don't appreciate that, as that seems like a poor design; to make something Essential to the point it becomes a tax.

You are right, inasmuch that it doesn't cost me a -Lot- to take it, but if it's going to be an auto-include make it a warlord trait or something, or just an Ethereal's ability. I can only take 3 Signature Systems, and with that in mind the Puretide engram absolutely costs me Something, that is the ability take another Tau system, leaving many of them underutilized. It's such a powerful artifact that I hope the Tau Earth Cast backed Puretide up on a Zip drive somewhere, because they better be producing his chips pretty fething flat out, given how many people use them

I'd think a lot of the Tau Signature systems are just kind of Meh (The weapons are pretty good, but I've never felt a need to take the 3" move item for a charged ethereal)... but that isn't a static set of items, there will be more presumably. Also we'll get adjustments to systems we've got in time, I'm sure all armies will. But assuming that engram is Still being taken, and suddenly Tau armies are -1 and -3 to their base CP...

I don't think I'm saying something unreasonable that CP Taxes are kind of crap. The system itself is Fine, but a tax should just be rolled over to be a rule for the army or a unit therein.

Help me understand what you are saying because you are calling puretide a tax. It is the opposite - puretide is a free command point generator. You are going to use a reroll in the game (the majority of my command points go to rerolls) so spending 1 command point to get puretide is just spending that command point to get the reoll up front (which you would have used anyways) plus it give bonus CP through the game. I feel like it will generate about 2 on average. Sometimes none - sometimes like the last game I used it youll end the game with more CP than you started with - because it even works on opponents stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Relics being free was easily the worst decision GW made with these Codices.

I think 1 free relic is kind of cool.

It's only cool if all relics are equal when free. They CLEARLY aren't.

You have no reason to take the Spartean as is, as that free relic slot can go elsewhere. Yeah it's a cool idea, but it doesn't work.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

We've been through the Russ Manticore comparison before in other threads ad nauseum, the Manticores no LoS value is hard to quantify, but in general they compare favroably right where they currently are, and looking at IG tournament lists and lists on the army subforum here, Manticores are far from autoincludes with most lists including none at all.

Manticores aren't auto includes? I guess aliotoc really are THAT OP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

It is worth making the distinction however that online games are able to collect data from all levels of play, from pro levels of play all the way down to the noobs and straight up bads. That said just because something is broken at one level of play doesn't mean its broken at another in those cases a company has to choose what level they want to balance stuff for, do you balance for high level play or casual play? you can't really balance for both, not in all cases, not all the time.. GW on the other hand only has data from tourneys, from high level play so to speak, which makes it somewhat more obvious what they should balance for.

I think if you do try to build up a statistical spreadsheet you will get a reasonably close situation.

Why are Flyrants really good? Well you could say "look at the tournaments" but you can also say "look at the stats".

And I don't really see the argument for "different levels of play". Bring 7 Flyrants down to your FLGS and play someone with a random bunch of models. See who has a fun game.

Some things need empirical testing. Movement abilities (ranging from just being fast, or the fly keyword, through to deep strike etc) can be game/meta dependent, and thus hard to value.

But comparing two shooting units, or assaulting units, or units which can do both, isn't that difficult. You can model their expected damage output statistically.

I mean I don't know how a Manticore stands up to a stripped down Leman Russ today. I can see why you might want both for different situations.

But I can tell you before the Guard Codex and then Chapter Approved the situation was clear. Not with context but just with maths. Manticores were miles better.

To be fair I think GW's internal balancing of codexes is better than its been in a long time - but there is still more to do.

If a unit on average dice expects to earn say 30% of its points back on a range of targets - and another expects to get back say 32% on a similar range of targets, I'd say its close enough that in a discrete game - or even a tournament - the dice will decide. People on the forums might still say X is overpowered and Y is utter trash - but its close enough.

By contrast when you have units which expect to make 40%+ of their points back, and other units which will only do 15%~ then its obvious the first is good and the first is bad. I don't think any context will change that.

 gbghg wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Once again your making my point for me by using incredibly twisted logic.
You don’t want group A data to effect group B because group A is not completely relevant to group B. This is 100% true the issue is you are also fine with group B being used to institute changes on group A despite group B not being completely relevant to group A and also containing NO DATA
So I’m conclussion you want to throw out what data we do have because it’s not perfect and would instead make changes on rumors of local meta and balance backed by no data

Don’t you go trying to put words in my mouth now.

My point always was, is currently, and shall remain, that your data is every bit as worthless as having no data in the context of trying to balance 40k. You attacked Xenomancer’s argument by saying that it had no data, and insinuated that the tournament results were data supporting your conclusion that the Guard Codex is not overpowered. I’m telling you that your data is as useless as having no data in the context of determining whether the Guard Codex is overpowered. That’s all I’m arguing on that front.

You have a small set of data. That set of data might help you to broadly discuss balance within the confines of that tournament alone. It is useless for the purpose of determining if the Guard Codex is overpowered, because that would require you to extrapolate outside of the range of known data. In order to extrapolate you must have a consistent basis, and you categorically do not have one here because as soon as you go beyond that specific tournament you’re introducing new elements like non-maximum-efficient units.

So I’ll say again, your Top 16 at X Tournament data is as useless as Xenomancer’s complete lack of data for determining the balance of the Guard Codex.



I also made a quite separate argument about why I believe the Guard Codex is overpowered, but by your own admission you didn’t read that argument so it’s probably safe to say you aren’t covering that in your response here.

Guess I misunderstood your post. But the way you put it now id have to disagree with you.
You could argue that tournament data is poor or insufficient but I fail to see the logic as saying its the same as no data presented. I'll take a relatively small statistical sample of what performs well any day over no sample.

Poor data is worse than no data. There is however no one arguing that the game be balanced with no data. What you are calling no data is the camp that says - the only data you need is probability of a d6.

You are ignoring that tournament players dont simply bring a random smash of units to the table and go "lets see if this works". They run the math hammer bring what should perform well and then they edit it based on how it plays once it hits the actual table top which has countless numbers of data that cant be calculated on a spreadsheet. All you are arguing for is making changes to a game without ever actually applying anything to the actual game. You are arguing for 0 playtesting, the thing people criticize GW for the most.

So the random WAAC players can do the math to figure out the best units...but a multi million dollar company can't do the math to figure a unit is too good? or too bad? Please - you just proved my point for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm comparing it to a 180 point russ.

Ok then. The manticore shouldn't be 70 points more expensive than a normal leman russ.

Oh, you don't understand? I was using the 70 point russ.

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Well I’m a simplistic way yes and it’s why every major game company on earth makes changes after release when players play the game.game testers are expensive and can only play a certain amount of games meanwhile players provide free data at an amount that any major company could collect. I’ve actually been in private talks with GMs for both wow ( vanilla) and eso just a few years ago being asked about balance. They have testers but it’s impossible for them to put in he amount of hours a community does in testing. I wouldn’t be surprised if more games of 40k were played in a weekend at LVO then the entire GW team had played to test 8th edition

"It's impossible" is an inexcusable cop out for a multi million dollar company. It is not impossible. The company is run by imbeciles - that's why it is impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

your Tpyical russ is 180 points with 2 HB 1 LC and a BC. It didn't make the number up you know?

Then in that case the Leman Russ has 1 Lascannon and 1 Heavy Bolter more than the Manticore, which makes it's firepower better.

If you just use the 1 HB 1 Cannon Russ then you get a much more accurate comparison - 1hb to 1hb, 2d6 weapon to 2d6 weapon. I don't know why you would do it differently.

You are right - it is a better comparison. So you are telling me that the ability to ignore LOS on the better main gun of the manticore is worth 9 points less than the russ? That is absurd - it's at least a 30 point upgrade on the weapon from a battle cannon +2 str and ignore LOS. The russ has better T and 1 or 2 more wounds and +1 save but that is hardly game breaking when you can shoot over walls. The ignore LOS is objectively better than the bonus defense - which is why people spam manticores and not russes in the first place. It's not about the 9 points they are saving.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

It is worth making the distinction however that online games are able to collect data from all levels of play, from pro levels of play all the way down to the noobs and straight up bads. That said just because something is broken at one level of play doesn't mean its broken at another in those cases a company has to choose what level they want to balance stuff for, do you balance for high-level play or casual play? you can't really balance for both, not in all cases, not all the time.. GW on the other hand only has data from tourneys, from high-level play so to speak, which makes it somewhat more obvious what they should balance for.

There definitely is a difference between high-level play and casual so I won't argue you are wrong, but the gap really isn't that large. Part of the reason the gap isn't that large is because of forums like this. The most casual player can come find an optimal gear set for a MMO or a list for 40k just by reading what top-level player did at x tournament. While the casual might not be able to optimize it 100% it will still give him a huge advantage over some guy at his local store. The issue is if something is under-costed in Warhammer or too efficient in a MMO even at competitive play chances are that it's still broken at lower levels too. I also think its telling that these hugely successful games take data from all levels but still have balance talks with top players and analyze tournaments closely. They know that what is destroying the tournament seen might soon by crushing casuals too and possibly making people leave the game.

Guys just spoiler the fething giant walls of quotes.

Command points were not designed to be fair. They were designed specifically for each codex, and balanced around the availability to CP contained within the codex. That's why there is a disparity in the quality of stratagems between codices like IG and Blood Angels.

Seems the disconnect comes when things like soup armies leverage efficient CP forces like IG for fueling CP hungry armies like custodes and BA.

Anyways, argue on, gents. I'm out.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Command points were not designed to be fair. They were designed specifically for each codex, and balanced around the availability to CP contained within the codex. That's why there is a disparity in the quality of stratagems between codices like IG and Blood Angels.

Seems the disconnect comes when things like soup armies leverage efficient CP forces like IG for fueling CP hungry armies like custodes and BA.

Anyways, argue on, gents. I'm out.

Exactly. A quick fix to this idea of CP batteries would be to have it so that a detachment can only use it's own CP that it generated, plus the 3CP from being Battleforged can be spread out. Maybe detachments with the same sub-faction keyword (so <Ultramarines> or <Cadians> ) could benefit from the same CP pool.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Command points were not designed to be fair. They were designed specifically for each codex, and balanced around the availability to CP contained within the codex. That's why there is a disparity in the quality of stratagems between codices like IG and Blood Angels.

Seems the disconnect comes when things like soup armies leverage efficient CP forces like IG for fueling CP hungry armies like custodes and BA.

Anyways, argue on, gents. I'm out.

Exactly this.

No it's literally impossible.... If any company on earth ran a game similar to this and took 0 data from the community the game would either never be balance or would go out of business hiring such an absurd amount of playtesters. This is why every company including ones far larger than GW collect data from players and balance around that after release.
Hearthstone
WoW
Starcraft
ESO
Rainbow6
and on and on and on for every game they do this. If it were possible to balance any of these games simply by applying a statistical spreadsheet they would (don't get me wrong that is where balance starts but not even close to where it ends). The fact is the player base will always be able to play a larger amount of games in a shorter period of time and collect a larger pool of data than the company producing a game ever could. Then a good company looks at this data and adjusts accordingly. Then every time they make any change the entire pool of data has to be re analyzed to see the impact which means they start to recollect the data and make changes from there.

I might add that the games you mentioned are actually easier to balance than 40k and despite that they are still doing perpetual balancing to it. In an online game you can accrue data more efficiently and the designers control the game arena. This simplifies an incredible amount of data points one has to take into consideration. Even then they are still balancing because it is a limited amount of testers compared to thousands if not millions of players.

Add to that that Warhammer 40k is very much an analog game as they do not dictate how you should set up the play area(except for size at best). This means that a lot of the math hammer can at best be done in regards to a play area that has no cover and everyone is within combat range(regardless of actual weapon range).

Also, "they are a large company and shouldn't have this issue" is a cop out. Size and resources don't matter when you are battling thousands of variables and can only acquire a set amount of designers/testers. Size and resources are not an automatic "everything gets fixed" variables. If anything, they can create many problems on their own.