September FAQ Date?

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.

**Ordana**

Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.

**Audustum**

Spoletta wrote:
Matched play does not mean "Ultra competitive setting".

The saturday game at the LGS organized on a Whatsapp group that same morning by saying "Hey! Who's up for a game with my salamanders? 2000 points", is the definition of matched play. The rules exist for this exact event, which represents easily more than 90% of the 40K games being played.

Those games are not ultra competitive, and the players usually bring to the table a mix of models they like and models that make the list work. This is 40K, this is what the rulebook is made for. This is what codici aim at.

The rules for "Ultra competitive play" the kind of which is right now made exclusively by soups, do not exist. They have no reason to, because they represent such a tiny amount of games, that they are completely irrelevant to the state of the game.

The difference in 8th is that GW finally understood that those tiny percentage of games tend to attract a lot of attention, and so through FAQs and CA, they are trying to patch the worst issues.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even there, they don't really to resolve them fully, they just need to constantly shake what is played at those levels, so that the cost of chasing the meta is high.

This way, the average 40K player (which takes his time to paint minis and has in general limited time to dedicate to the hobby), is not encouraged to buy into the last hotness, because the time required to implement it into his army, is longer than the time the meta requires to change.

As long as this is true, you prevent the cancer of the top competitive lists to contaminate the healthy parts of the hobby.

There is so much speculation here it's mind boggling. We don't actually know what kind of game is the most common. For instance, when my group says "Who's up for a game?" This weekend, the understanding is it's ultra competitive and you better bring a netlist or something you made that can compete with them. Just because a game isn't at a tournament doesn't mean it's not super competitive.

**xeen**

I would fix the Soup issue by making a rule that you can only use Artifacts and Stratagems of your Warlord's faction. This would heavily nerf soup lists (it also hurts my primary list real bad so I am not bias), then we can move on the the next broken issue that will come up, because for as long as I have played 40K for the past almost two decades, there has always been some issue that needs fixing, it gets fixed and we are one to the next issue.

Also they need to nerf Agents of Vect. That stratagem is way way to good with the CP regen. It needs to be once per game turn or something.

**Stux**

xeen wrote:
I would fix the Soup issue by making a rule that you can only use Artifacts and Stratagems of your Warlord's faction. This would heavily nerf soup lists (it also hurts my primary list real bad so I am not bias), then we can move on the the next broken issue that will come up, because for as long as I have played 40K for the past almost two decades, there has always been some issue that needs fixing, it gets fixed and we are one to the next issue.

I feel it's important to emphasise that with the best will in the world, this will never change. I feel some people don't realise this. It will always be fighting fires by the very nature of how GW publishes rules.

If they were ever approaching a 'perfect' ruleset (hypothetically) it wouldn't be long until it was chucked and replaced by a new edition, even if it's change for changes sake. Because ultimately they have to keep selling books!

**Sunny Side Up**

Reemule wrote:
I do care about the other ones, but your system of using casual players gives no chance of fixing them either, despite your idea that some how causal players are good at identifying those things.

And again, Trying to balance the one thing with multiple nerfs at the same time just leads to centurions.

Chaos doesn't bring predators either. So chances are your matching something that is broken, against something else that is broken.

Well, your system of using competitive players (or casual players or any other type of players) won't work, because you need ALL players if you're writing a game for ALL players. And we need the casual players' insight precisely BECAUSE you, by your own admission, seem unable to wrap your head around their perspective and contribution. That is why they need to be represented (just like all other kinds of players, casual, competitive, drunk, narrative, whatever) by their own kind.

If you want to balance (or not) the game for the competitive types only, do it in the ITC ruleset. There's already pages upon pages of horribly ill-advised house rules to missions and terrain and what not (actually making ITC tournament players arguably the least qualified to give feedback on 40K, given they aren't actually playing it by the book to begin with). Adding a few pages of points and whatnot won't be much of an issue. Than you can have your own little "competitive 40K" for the privileged competitive you seem to value so highly.

But for the 40K everyone plays, everyone must get a say relative to how much of the player base they constitute.

**Audustum**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Reemule wrote:
I do care about the other ones, but your system of using casual players gives no chance of fixing them either, despite your idea that some how causal players are good at identifying those things.

And again, Trying to balance the one thing with multiple nerfs at the same time just leads to centurions.

Chaos doesn't bring predators either. So chances are your matching something that is broken, against something else that is broken.

Well, your system of using competitive players (or casual players or any other type of players) won't work, because you need ALL players if you're writing a game for ALL players.

If you want to balance (or not) the game for the competitive types only, do it in the ITC ruleset. There's already pages upon pages of horribly ill-advised house rules to missions and terrain and what not (actually making ITC tournament players arguably the least qualified to give feedback on 40K, given they aren't actually playing it by the book to begin with). Adding a few pages of points and whatnot won't be much of an issue. Than you can have your own little "competitive 40K" for the privileged competitive you seem to value so highly.

But for the 40K everyone plays, everyone must get a say relative to how much of the player base they constitute.

While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.

**Sunny Side Up**

Audustum wrote:

While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.

Again. Not true.

1. If skill was a more relevant factor than lists, there'd be no bias towards certain lists or units among the top players to begin with.
2. Since there is, we can assume that not all units are equally balanced.
3. If they are not equally balanced, we can assume there's a hierarchy of unit-effectiveness relative to their points, e.g. A < B < C < D < E < ... < X < Y < Z.
4. Tournaments, by their very nature, will never discover 99% of the balance problems as they are below the Y and Zs that show up in tournaments. A balance problem of C < D wont ever appear in tournaments despite still potentially ruining more games of 40K a day than are played in all ITC tournaments in a year combined.

**LunarSol**

Ordana wrote:
Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.

Generally speaking, inter-faction balance should be the primary goal. It's very easy to get hung up on intra-faction balance, but most games struggle to have even one competitively viable list for each of their factions and that kind of needs to be the priority. As disappointing as it is that Terminators are bad; I'd rather something like that be non competitive than an entire faction.

**Xenomancers**

Ordana wrote:
Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.

It blows my mind that this needs to be stated so often but well said. This is the truth!

**Sunny Side Up**

Ordana wrote:
Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.

Sure. But what is the difference,

That's the problem with tournament samples. A 3% or even 0.3% difference between the very best unit and the second best unit/codex/equipment/combo/whatever can result in huge swings in the tournament meta, because that's the nature of tournaments, while a 30% difference between the 16th best unit and the 17th best unit goes unnoticed.

**LunarSol**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Ordana wrote:
Balance is not black and white.
There are degrees of (in)balance that are acceptable.
Its about bringing armies closer together. a 5% difference in power is fine. a 50% difference isn't.

Sure. But what is the difference,

That's the problem with tournament samples. A 3% or even 0.3% difference between the very best unit and the second best unit/codex/equipment/combo/whatever can result in huge swings in the tournament meta, because that's the nature of tournaments, while a 30% difference between the 16th best unit and the 17th best unit goes unnoticed.

Trying to balance units is madness. There are too many factors at play, the least of which is which other units people are taking. Focus on factions first, make sure they all have at least one competitive option, then you can start balancing underperforming units in that faction up to their competitive standard.

**Audustum**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Audustum wrote:

While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.

Again. Not true.

1. If skill was a more relevant factor than lists, there'd be no bias towards certain lists or units among the top players to begin with.
2. Since there is, we can assume that not all units are equally balanced.
3. If they are not equally balanced, we can assume there's a hierarchy of unit-effectiveness relative to their points, e.g. A < B < C < D < E < ... < X < Y < Z.
4. Tournaments, by their very nature, will never discover 99% of the balance problems as they are below the Y and Zs that show up in tournaments. A balance problem of C < D wont ever appear in tournaments despite still potentially ruining more games of 40K a day than are played in all ITC tournaments in a year combined.

This is just wrong, quite frankly. Skill can be a relevant factor while lists are still a MORE relevant factor. Look at SC2 as an example. Most player wouldn't dispute late game is biased against Terran just from design/unit stats/production methods, but there isn't a huge push for Blizzard to fix it because you have players like Maru and TY at the tippy top level proving that, when you've got top level skills, things are fairly balanced. It's just that it's more mechanically demanding for a Terran to fight in that stage so lower level players can't do it as well.

As it is though, you definitely see a bias in most PvT favoring turtle builds for P and rush builds for T because both players know that's where their advantage lies.

Here, we see biases towards soup because mass CP is really helpful on certain units or SfD is. Skill is certainly RELEVANT, even if this game doesn't take as much as something like Starcraft, but you'll see that bias towards those lists because that's where natural advantage lies just like in SC2's builds.

We know most units in 40k aren't equally balanced, but routinely balancing the tippy top will continuously smooth out the edges until they're all there or substantially closer. If you show me a low level game of 40k, it's can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the players just used them poorly, by contrast.

**Sunny Side Up**

Audustum wrote:

We know most units in 40k aren't equally balanced, but routinely balancing the tippy top will continuously smooth out the edges until they're all there or substantially closer. If you show me a low level game of 40k, it's can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the players just used them poorly, by contrast.

That's why you sample. If you show me a Nova or LVO finals, it can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the heavy houserules and custom missions simply distorted the game in ways that don't reflect normal 40K. Lots of units boosted by ITC formats like Hive Guard, Space Marine Scouts, etc.. probably need a slight point increase in ITC only to reflect their increased utility and decreased downsides in that particular houserule format, but are better balanced in 40K.

Hence, statistically and scientifically, you sample 40K games from all types, skill levels, geographic regions, etc.., and get a broad, representative cross-section of the game across the entirety of the player base it is made for.

**Reemule**

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Hence, statistically and scientifically, you sample 40K games from all types, skill levels, geographic regions, etc.., and get a broad, representative cross-section of the game across the entirety of the player base it is made for.

The problem I have with this is that its a null. What is a sample? How does it matter that you talk some some group in Florida, but you don't talk to the second largest group in New Jersey that has many more players who are much more active because you needed someone from the south east portion of the US?

Still going back to sample. What is this do they fill out a questionnaire? How many points does your PL playing group feel Bobby G should be? Do you attend there game sessions to see what kind of play they do? Who is going to do this?

Another part of the reason the Tourney play is the standard is the information is very easy to get. Within a few minutes I can pull the winning list of each major tourney for the last 4-5 years and what format they used.

Your idea of somehow this mass sampling is worthwhile was never going to work. But once you get to any kind of nut and bolts, it really falls apart.

**Xenomancers**

Audustum wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Audustum wrote:

While it's true we should all get a say, balancing it at the top end balances it for everyone. If you're losing matches at the lower levels, we can't necessarily attribute it to balance because it could also just be your own newbness showing. Conversely, you can solve any issue you're having by improving as a player.

Again. Not true.

1. If skill was a more relevant factor than lists, there'd be no bias towards certain lists or units among the top players to begin with.
2. Since there is, we can assume that not all units are equally balanced.
3. If they are not equally balanced, we can assume there's a hierarchy of unit-effectiveness relative to their points, e.g. A < B < C < D < E < ... < X < Y < Z.
4. Tournaments, by their very nature, will never discover 99% of the balance problems as they are below the Y and Zs that show up in tournaments. A balance problem of C < D wont ever appear in tournaments despite still potentially ruining more games of 40K a day than are played in all ITC tournaments in a year combined.

This is just wrong, quite frankly. Skill can be a relevant factor while lists are still a MORE relevant factor. Look at SC2 as an example. Most player wouldn't dispute late game is biased against Terran just from design/unit stats/production methods, but there isn't a huge push for Blizzard to fix it because you have players like Maru and TY at the tippy top level proving that, when you've got top level skills, things are fairly balanced. It's just that it's more mechanically demanding for a Terran to fight in that stage so lower level players can't do it as well.

As it is though, you definitely see a bias in most PvT favoring turtle builds for P and rush builds for T because both players know that's where their advantage lies.

Here, we see biases towards soup because mass CP is really helpful on certain units or SfD is. Skill is certainly RELEVANT, even if this game doesn't take as much as something like Starcraft, but you'll see that bias towards those lists because that's where natural advantage lies just like in SC2's builds.

We know most units in 40k aren't equally balanced, but routinely balancing the tippy top will continuously smooth out the edges until they're all there or substantially closer. If you show me a low level game of 40k, it's can be very hard to determine if the units were unbalanced or the players just used them poorly, by contrast.

40k has nothing even close to representing the power that skill has in a game like sc2. It's really not even a factor in 40k. I seriously could never win a game against a pro sc2 player and I used to be a diamond 1v1 player. I literally would not have a chance and would lose 100% of games to a top challenger player. I would win at least 50% against top 40k players - the only factor in these games would be list selection and dice.

**gwarsh41**

That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

**Reemule**

gwarsh41 wrote:
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?

Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?

Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.

Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.

**Xenomancers**

gwarsh41 wrote:
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

I'm just saying the difference in skill between me a top player in 40k - is probably less than a dice roll to the outcome. I legit can not beat a pro sc2 player. They could beat me without micro.

Really - 40k is a coin toss game at the top level. Games are decided when you fail a crucial spell even though you saved your reroll...A turn where you make 14-15 4++ saves with basically win you the game where as a turn where you make 1-15 4++ saves loses it. If everyone is rolling average - the guy who went first is probably gonna win a long close game. That's just the way the game works.

**beir**

Xenomancers wrote:

I'm just saying the difference in skill between me a top player in 40k - is probably less than a dice roll to the outcome. I legit can not beat a pro sc2 player. They could beat me without micro.

Really - 40k is a coin toss game at the top level.

This is a ridiculous statement.

**Xenomancers**

beir wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

I'm just saying the difference in skill between me a top player in 40k - is probably less than a dice roll to the outcome. I legit can not beat a pro sc2 player. They could beat me without micro.

Really - 40k is a coin toss game at the top level.

This is a ridiculous statement.

Okay...maybe elaborate?

**Bharring**

Everything is simple and obvious and easy, if you're not familiar enough to know why it's not.

**beir**

Xenomancers wrote:

Okay...maybe elaborate?

There's really no point. If you're going to make a statement like 'there is no skill in top-level 40k that matters', no reasonable statement I could make would make you realize how incorrect that is.

**Spartacus**

The same players/teams being successful in high level play time after time above hundreds of other players should be enough to prove to anyone that at least the game is not a coin toss.

**Eldarsif**

Although this does not provide unit breakdown this NOVA list does show how armies are performing there.

https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-of-armies-of-nova-open-2018/

As expected Knights w. Batteries and Ynnari are doing incredibly well. Drukhari are at 10th place. Craftworlds are at 21st place performing below average(ie. Ynnari and soup is the problem with Craftworlds not monolists). Harlequins are also doing well but I imagine that is thanks to their Haywire versus the current IK meta as well as their mobility and invulns against high damage weapons.

**Tyel**

beir wrote:
This is a ridiculous statement.

Yeah.

There is a lot of skill in 40k. The dice mean there is inherently more luck than SC2 - but I'd argue its considerably less influenced by luck than MTG/Hearthstone.

Good players get ranked in tournaments sufficiently consistently that it stretches credibility they don't possess some knowledge we can define as "skill" and are instead just lucky. Part of that is bringing a list which is good - but there is also using it correctly. Unlike certain card decks while Imperial Soup might stack the odds in your favour it doesn't play itself.

It sounds simple, but remembering movement, objectives, target priority, rules interactions, stratagems etc through a tournament isn't easy when you are the one doing it rather than just observing from the sidelines.

FWIW I am suspect a top level player of SC2 would defeat someone vaguely good without Micro (i.e. A moving their whole army in and only looking at their base). The point about being a good player is that you can micro and it doesn't impact your macro much (and vice versa). You can quite easily defeat someone who A-moves even if they have considerably more resources.

**Xenomancers**

beir wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Okay...maybe elaborate?

There's really no point. If you're going to make a statement like 'there is no skill in top-level 40k that matters', no reasonable statement I could make would make you realize how incorrect that is.

Okay so - "skill in 40k is a huge factor because you say so and to not say so is preposterous" this is your argument?

**Bharring**

Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.

Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.

I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.

I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.

If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.

List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.

All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.

**Cinderspirit**

Reemule wrote:
gwarsh41 wrote:
That is mostly because SC2 is not turn based. In 40k you have a good amount of time to measure and double check. In SC2, or virtually any e-sport video game, you do not have time to think, and have to do everything on instinct.

It doesn't have to do as much about balance, as it does with the core of the game. That isn't to dismiss balance all together, but if we look at that, we have to also look at how much larger 40k is than many e-sport games.

Lastly, I think you underestimate the strategy that goes into the top tier players in 40k. Breaking it down to 50% win/lose is just as bad as saying that 40k is a coin toss game. Backing that up by saying list and dice are the only factor makes me wonder if you have ever actually played a tabletop game before.

Okay. Real question here. Why do you feel 40K is larger than any esport? What are you basing that data on?

Anecdotally, the LVO 3 years ago had one of the bigger 40K crowds I've seen, I'd guess upwards of 500 players. What is the biggest 40K event? Maybe 1K people?

Esports boast a 380 million people viewership in 2017, expected to raise in 2018.

Meanwhile 40K isn't even the biggest miniature game.

I guess he meant the size of the actual game, which has many more factions and units than SC2 or most other games. I guess no one would say Warhammer has a bigger fan base than esports, that would be just silly.

In SC2 there are 3 factions with maybe 20 units each. Each faction can beat the other depending on the build chosen and the skill level of the player, as building your army is part of the game, and every unit has it's place to counter another unit or suprise the enemy. This is much easier to balance as 40k is. If a unit isn't as strong as the others overall it doesn't feel all that bad, as it will still have it's uses in some games and can be built at will. If a unit is underpowered/overspecialized in 40k no one will bring it, as it would be too risky.

**Sunny Side Up**

The problem I have with this is that its a null. What is a sample? How does it matter that you talk some some group in Florida, but you don't talk to the second largest group in New Jersey that has many more players who are much more active because you needed someone from the south east portion of the US?

Still going back to sample. What is this do they fill out a questionnaire? How many points does your PL playing group feel Bobby G should be? Do you attend there game sessions to see what kind of play they do? Who is going to do this?

Another part of the reason the Tourney play is the standard is the information is very easy to get. Within a few minutes I can pull the winning list of each major tourney for the last 4-5 years and what format they used.

Your idea of somehow this mass sampling is worthwhile was never going to work. But once you get to any kind of nut and bolts, it really falls apart.

How do you sample, what questionaire questions, etc.. ?

There books and experts on that. I am not gonna elaborate that here. Even an hour on Wikipedia should give you a basic overview.

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
Because, why not, here's more of an elaboration.

Take NOVA. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants. I would estimate (guess) that there were 50+ participants last year.

I would bet more of the players who were in the top 10 last year who played again this year were in the top 10.

I would further bet that, of those players, the list they used this year was nearly identical to a list that placed below 50%.

If player skill had less impact than a coin toss, you should not expect the same players to place in the top 10 more often than is random (once every 5 showings for a 50man tournament) without some biasing factor.

List construction is a biasing factor, but the presence of the same list in the bottom half more frequently than a top-10-last-year player in the bottom half would strongly suggest that it is *much* less biasing than the player themself.

All this is supposition without having looked at last year's lineup. Go head, look at the results. I'm sure you'd love to prove me wrong. But even sight unseen, I'm quite confident I'm not wrong here.

Unless of course. Not everyone at Nova is playing a super competitive list. Go ahead and toss out 50% of the list right there. Some armies are just better than others and people tend to play the same army...That accounts for more. That's basically it right there.