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.

Reemule wrote:


Well, except he is incorrect. His premise is that he knows that he has a hierarchy of his long range chaos options. If that was true, he would be right, and it should be fixed as he says.

But he has no realistic relevant data on that hierarchy. He has gut feels, and anecdotal evidence that is amplified by the echo chamber of Dakka Dakka.

And with that in mind, he is correct on his second point, but drawns the wrong conclusion. The game needs to whackamole down the top in a slow deliberate fashion. If you took the top 5 most common units used in competitive play, and increased their cost by 5 points, and reduced the cost of the bottom 10 by 10 points, chances are you would find a more balanced game in a few hundred passed later.

Of course I don't have relevant data. But neither have you. That is the problem. You have something infinitely WORSE than no data. You have SKEWED data.

Of course, maybe all long-range Chaos long range options (or Imperial, etc..) are perfectly in balance and in full equilibrium, expect for one, but it's rather improbable.

Either way, you missed the point. It's not so much that there are options that need balancing that just aren't showing in tournaments because, while still OP, they are still eclipsed by stuff even more OP, though that is almost certainly the case, given we know that there are some things that are OP, thus assuming there are things that are also, OP, just less so isn't much of a logical leap.

The main point is that if you're a GW playtester, say, and you're basing your own "gut feelings" and "instincts" and "insights" on what you believe is OP and what is not on a non-representative, skewed sample, for example tournaments and the sub-set of the hobbyists and GW customers that attend tournaments, instead of making the effort to go and collect representative data, you're making things worse, not better.


History is littered with examples of people drawing the most harebrained and stupid conclusion, simply because they lazily relied on "the data they had" instead of "the data they would need to collect" when they drew their conclusions (and falsely mistaking "lots of data" for "good data", which is a freshman's mistake in data analysis).


Yes, Dakka is an echo chamber and nobody should ever draw any conclusions about what is OP or not OP based on dakka alone. The same is true tenfold over for the ITC tournament circuit however, precisely because the "effort" to attend a tournament is higher than the "effort" to log onto Dakka or other online places/social media and write a comment. Ergo, the latter is even more skewed, comprised of an even more self-selected and biased type of 40K players.

I'm afraid your wrong again.

If Option X is 90% over powered and due to that we are missing that option y is 70% over powered, after Option X is nerfed, Option Y will be showing up all the time... and then get nerfed.

No wild eye accusations by the serious playtesters that exist in basements and that never go to Tournaments data needed.

Reemule wrote:
I'm afraid your wrong again.

If Option X is 90% over powered and due to that we are missing that option y is 70% over powered, after Option X is nerfed, Option Y will be showing up all the time... and then get nerfed.

No wild eye accusations by the serious playtesters that exist in basements and that never go to Tournaments data needed.

As mentioned before, you're not appreciating the scope of this.


As done above, let's assume there 15 Codexes in the game, with, let's say, lowballing 25 data sheets in each codex which can be used in any combination of, again lowballing, 10 different units per army list. Ignoring allies, equipment options, etc.., that's about 131,128,140 lists per codex, or close to 2,000 Million lists from 15 Codexes, completely ignoring allies.

If you just wanna adjust the Top 1% with a 5% price hike and boost the bottom 1% with a 5% deduction to work your "whack-a-mole" approach over time, you'll need to price-hike around 20 Million different lists and price-drop around 20 Million list (real numbers will be exponentially larger). More lists than would sign up to all ITC events combined in the next 50 years.

If you go at it top 5 units/combos/synergies and bottom 5 units/combos/synergies every single day, you'd still be here in roughly 54,000 years to complete just the top 1% (and I am, Dakka-biased as I am, quite sure the Knight Crusader and Chaos Castellan would come up at some point in those 54,000 years).

Of course it never ends. Too many factors change for it to ever end.

But the idea that multiple directional nerfs does anything but break models is blatant silliness.

Ideally, in a perfect world, GW would fix the rules first, then fix models.

But of course, that goes back to what has been said again and again on this thread by me and some others, fix CP (Rules) over Nerfing Castellan's (model).

The issue is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

"Balance" in 40k is having units sufficiently close enough in power that it isn't obviously foolish to take a different option and so you see a variety of different units and factions on the table.

You don't want a situation where E is obviously better than D through A with clear tier differences.

Lets say you have a system where E is 100% efficient, D is 85% efficient, C is 70% efficient etc. Its obvious you take E, and its also obvious poor A, at just 40% efficiency, is garbage. Actually everything from D down is garbage.

By contrast a system where E is 100% efficient, D is 98% efficient, C is 96% efficient etc all the way down would be much closer. Sure, mathematically E might win out - but in terms of a discrete game, or even a discrete tournament, everything would be close enough that it wouldn't hugely matter. Correct targeting and positioning together with luck would have a greater impact on the outcome of the game than unit stats.

This applies whether you are talking long range chaos shooting options - or whether you should bring Imperial Soup or mono-Necrons (aka, Necrons).

Reemule wrote:
Of course it never ends. Too many factors change for it to ever end.

But the idea that multiple directional nerfs does anything but break models is blatant silliness.

Ideally, in a perfect world, GW would fix the rules first, then fix models.

But of course, that goes back to what has been said again and again on this thread by me and some others, fix CP (Rules) over Nerfing Castellan's (model).

Sure. CP is a big issue. But if the Castellan, by its lonesome, would be perfectly balanced, it wouldn't show up statistically more often than other Imperial long-range firepower options, which all have access to the same CP battery.

If under equal conditions (e.g. CP battery), there's a trend towards one (or even five) certain choices over others, it's by definition not just the CP battery.

Imperium also has access to Guard. You guys think of them as just a battery, but they add immense value beyond that. There are plenty of reasons Guard + Knights are dominating. Knights are a major part, but chaos can replicate NOTHING like imperial guard.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Of course it never ends. Too many factors change for it to ever end.

But the idea that multiple directional nerfs does anything but break models is blatant silliness.

Ideally, in a perfect world, GW would fix the rules first, then fix models.

But of course, that goes back to what has been said again and again on this thread by me and some others, fix CP (Rules) over Nerfing Castellan's (model).

Sure. CP is a big issue. But if the Castellan, by its lonesome, would be perfectly balanced, it wouldn't show up statistically more often than other Imperial long-range firepower options, which all have access to the same CP battery.

If under equal conditions (e.g. CP battery), there's a trend towards one (or even five) certain choices over others, it's by definition not just the CP battery.

Still no.

Now you are pointing out the flaw already... Skewwed data. THe Castellan can show in more than Imperium Forces. If it was head and shoulders above all other options, it would show in all places possible.

But it doesn't.

I can easily see a time where the Castellan gets changed. But will that come before the CP changes? We should all hope not.

Reemule wrote:


I can easily see a time where the Castellan gets changed. But will that come before the CP changes? We should all hope not.

We should all hope it does, especially you, if you‘re so concerned about „breaking models“. Let‘s pray all those Vindicators, Basilisk, Hellhammers, etc.. don’t remain broken 2 weeks from now just because of special-snowflake-protection for one model out there.

And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).

Reemule wrote:
And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).

Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.

The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.
GW has also made it increasingly difficult for a single player to know all the rules and ramifications of a proposed change.
Something might be awesome for 90% of the factions, but turn the other 10% into the worst bottom tier drek.

But after that, I feel most players could get a good handle on it.

-

 Galef wrote:
The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.

GW devs are not less biased than players. I said it already in half a dozen threads, but when you look at Death Guard / Nurgle psychic powers and then other factions psychic powers (Thousand Sons, Eldar), you realise that devs are highly biased towards Nurgle (DG / Nurgle have identical or better powers, yet their Warp Charges are all lower).

Unfortunately, players do not own this game. GW does. The dev team we have now is the best GW's ever had, so all we can do is hope they'll make the game "reasonably" balanced for us to enjoy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).

Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.

Given that GW staff ARE players, but ones with experience in the industry, how can that possibly be true?

Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).

Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.

Given that GW staff ARE players, but ones with experience in the industry, how can that possibly be true?

All one needs to do is look at the rules to the game they give us and we know it is true. These rules are Gak.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:
And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).

Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.

Given that GW staff ARE players, but ones with experience in the industry, how can that possibly be true?

All one needs to do is look at the rules to the game they give us and we know it is true. These rules are Gak.

That's just salty hyperbole. Or a severe lack of perspective. The game is a lot better than what the average armchair designer would make given free reign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly. The majority of ideas from players I see would make things worse. And the good ones come from people who are also adament about their other ideas that are terrible.

There's a lot more that goes into this than people give credit for. Especially considering the business, brand, and manufacturing pressures too.

 Galef wrote:
The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.
GW has also made it increasingly difficult for a single player to know all the rules and ramifications of a proposed change.
Something might be awesome for 90% of the factions, but turn the other 10% into the worst bottom tier drek.

But after that, I feel most players could get a good handle on it.

-

GW has a bias too and they are notoriously bad at making decisions about how to fix problems/ even understand there is a problem/ ect.

When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

The points changes except for those direct at tyrants and conscripts and reapers seem to be randomly selected ignoring bigger problem units to make love taps to units that are still unplayable or in some cases nerf units that are already bad like warlocks.

Bad Bad Bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

Yup Xeno, everything has been bad, terrible even.

That's why zero list has been able to keep the head of the meta for a single year, let alone six months.

So far, 8th has seen more meta changes than any of the prior editions in the same timespan, and likely more than many other wargames.

I'm happy with that, even though I have zero time to play toy soldiers these days .

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ

-

Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.

True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.

Of those 4, there's only one I consider actually bad, but whatever.

Players are pretty good at identifying issues in hindsight and insisting they either wouldn't make a similar mistake or at the very least have the perfect solution for it. Realistically, they're mostly analyzing current state and will more often than not find themselves in the exact same situation under slightly different circumstances once a large enough group has had the opportunity to cherry pick efficiency out of their new systems.

I've seen PLENTY of attempts by players to take games into their own hands or even storm off and make their own game. Pretty much every system cycles back to where 40k is now; overall more balanced than people will give it credit for with some obvious outliers and a community that insists that if it was up to them, it would be perfect.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ

-

Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.

True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.

You've never heard of critical mass, yeah? Let me give you an example from another game: StarCraft 2. 1 Marine has a very different power level than 200 Marines. 2 Zerglings (same cost) can easily dispatch 1 Marine. 400 Zerglings don't have a prayer against 200 Marines. When certain units reach a certain volume, their synergy allows them to outperform what they could do in smaller groups.

40k has that as well. We just tend to call lists that aim for critical mass 'skew lists'. 1 Knight Valiant is something many lists are learning to handle. Even a Custodes Jetbike Captain can probably survive the Overwatch of that flamer and get him into melee. If you had 3 Hawkshroud Valiants, however, they would liquidate any equivalent-point assault force or less. 600 points of Slamguinuses could easily kill 1 Valiant. 1800 points of Salmguinuses probably can't even touch 3.

So yes, things can absolutely be OP when you take more than 3 of them but not when you only take 1. That said, the Rule of 3 doesn't do much at all. I agree with that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ

-

Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.

True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Kinda like how "Unbound" was a joke in 7E. Because with minimal effort, you could take whatever you wanted anyway and still be Battle Forged + get bonuses.
Still, that doesn't mean the rule is a bad one, just poorly executed.

If GW is guilty of anything regarding poor rules balance, it's underestimating the "TFG-ness" of the community as a whole. It is pretty clear that GW never intends for certain armies to proliferate as they do or for a "meta" to form. That doesn't make them a bad company, just a naïve one

-

morgoth wrote:
Yup Xeno, everything has been bad, terrible even.

That's why zero list has been able to keep the head of the meta for a single year, let alone six months.

So far, 8th has seen more meta changes than any of the prior editions in the same timespan, and likely more than many other wargames.

I'm happy with that, even though I have zero time to play toy soldiers these days .

That is to be expected with a codex release like they have been doing. Every "beta rule" change has affect the meta adversely.

Beta DS nerfed half the competitive armies out of the game.
Beta Smite unnecessarily nerfed heavy psychic armies. For some reason you need diminished returns on smite - but not shooting weapons?
Rule of 3 made already not so great armies worse.

Plus you are wrong. The Meta has not changed one bit other than the obvious deep strike nerf. Still it's the same armies dominating - with some new comers from the power creep codex.
Eldar soup / Imperial soup / DG/TS and friends. It's been like this all edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ

-

Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.

True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Kinda like how "Unbound" was a joke in 7E. Because with minimal effort, you could take whatever you wanted and still be Battle Forged + get bonuses.
Still, that doesn't mean the rule is a bad one, just poorly executed.

If GW is guilty of anything regarding poor rules balance, it's underestimating the "TFG-ness" of the community as a whole. It is pretty clear that GW never intends for certain armies to proliferate as they do or for a "meta" to form. That doesn't make them a bad company, just a naïve one

-

Well I am at my wits end with GW. I used to be totally opposed to "house rules" but I am honestly having way more fun and so is everyone around me just playing by the rules we want to play by.

A friend of mine put it pretty clearly to me and it just blew my mind. He said "Why should we wait years for GW to maybe fix a problem when we can fix it right now, why are we waiting for this stupid FAQ when we know it's going to be garbage"? I really couldn't give him an answer without talking out of my butt. That's when I knew - I am just about to stop caring about this game unless they make some changes that actually make the game better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ

-

Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.

True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.

You've never heard of critical mass, yeah? Let me give you an example from another game: StarCraft 2. 1 Marine has a very different power level than 200 Marines. 2 Zerglings (same cost) can easily dispatch 1 Marine. 400 Zerglings don't have a prayer against 200 Marines. When certain units reach a certain volume, their synergy allows them to outperform what they could do in smaller groups.

40k has that as well. We just tend to call lists that aim for critical mass 'skew lists'. 1 Knight Valiant is something many lists are learning to handle. Even a Custodes Jetbike Captain can probably survive the Overwatch of that flamer and get him into melee. If you had 3 Hawkshroud Valiants, however, they would liquidate any equivalent-point assault force or less. 600 points of Slamguinuses could easily kill 1 Valiant. 1800 points of Salmguinuses probably can't even touch 3.

So yes, things can absolutely be OP when you take more than 3 of them but not when you only take 1. That said, the Rule of 3 doesn't do much at all. I agree with that.

That's really not true. 400 lings can kill 200 marines - they just need to surround them and attack them in a wide open area or use burrow to attack them when they are chaining through a choke point and can't ball up - or realistically - have a few defiler and queens and the zerglings will murder the marines with almost no chance. Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless.

If you BA example - relics are limit 1 per army of a type - because they would be OP on every model. If you could have 3 BA captains that ignore overwatch and possibly kill all 3 in a sigle turn that would be OP. Bad example there.

Plus really - this affect happens with all range vs CC in that game - it's not unique to the zergling/marine. A big ball of ranged units does not lose to even the most elite CC units.

.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.

Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.

Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.

If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.

I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.

You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.

In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.

Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..

So A < B < C < D < E

Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.

But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.

This guy gets it. Listen to this guy.

Well, except he is incorrect. His premise is that he knows that he has a hierarchy of his long range chaos options. If that was true, he would be right, and it should be fixed as he says.

But he has no realistic relevant data on that hierarchy. He has gut feels, and anecdotal evidence that is amplified by the echo chamber of Dakka Dakka.

And with that in mind, he is correct on his second point, but drawns the wrong conclusion. The game needs to whackamole down the top in a slow deliberate fashion. If you took the top 5 most common units used in competitive play, and increased their cost by 5 points, and reduced the cost of the bottom 10 by 10 points, chances are you would find a more balanced game in a few hundred passed later.

This is so ignorant. Your opinion is far from objective here either mate. You guys are trading opinions, this is not a topic on which dakkadakka has some unified echo chamber opinion on lmao, people just disagree with you. Perhaps you sure reconsider if your perspective is as ironclad as you think it is, though I'm not sure you're capable of even considering the idea.

GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.

Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.

"Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless. "

That's not remotely true. But largely irrelevant.

Reemule wrote:
And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).

I agree. Which is why applying logic, statistics and similar tools help at getting an objective view outside of the idiots' response of "hey, it's not a problem in my little ITC microcosm and I don't give a flying feth about the other 99.99% of 40K out there".

In truth GW should apply machine learning to game balance. With the volumes of data collected by BCP and the ITC, they could easily see the effects percentage wise play out across the body of lists as a whole. The idea that you need some duder in charge of a book, pulling numbers out of his ass based on "that dern thang looka too stronk" (case in point: flyrant nerf, on top of rule of 3) is kind of outmoded.

BrianDavion wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
I had an idea on the CP issue. What if CP regeneration was removed from warlord traits and units entirely, and instead tied to holding objectives? For each objective you hold you get one on a 5+, with the current traits and relics either improving the roll or giving additional cp for objectives they hold. Add 4 objective to kill point missions that only exist for CP. If I can get a game in this week with a willing Guinea pig I'll report my findings.

intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game

They could ALSO just make it so you can only ever get back a certain amount of CP in a turn.