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.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.

It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.

To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before. Armored sentinels vs Scout sentinels is now a choice between tough vs mobile for the same points cost.

Spoletta wrote:

And this is where you are wrong. Top GK lists gained some points to play around, other competitive lists received almost nothing, if not straight out nerfs. You say that everyone received points reduction, but that is not true. Only those people that played sub optimal models got them, and that is a good thing. I didn't see banana captains go down, i saw wardens go down. Have you ever seen a warden on the table?

Onyl Admech, Necrons and GK received buffs to models and weapons that they were already using, everyone else only received buffs on models you never saw on the table (and tank commanders ).

This CA is one of the better publications made by GW, they reduced the gap between good lists and bad lists by a huge margin.
Is this enough for GK? No it isn't, the gap was really too big and while it is now surely reduced, they are still a mid-bottom faction (still in a much better situation than pre-CA2018).

Plasma getting cheaper is suboptimal? Cawl getting cheaper is suboptimal? And your saying that somehow by eldar not getting cheaper farseers or s spears their lists got worse. Go on buy a GK army, and play it against a "weaker" pre CA eldar list with you using all the points downgrades, or play against IG or an IG soup, am sure the games are going to be a lot more balanced then they were before.

What the hell is a top GK army anyway NDKS, maybe some interceptors and a ton of IG or SoB. What a great way to play GK. take as few GK models in it. I wonder if eldar have to take 1000pts of tau to be mid tier.

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.

It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.

To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before.

Also the fact that Chaos guardsmen (in black stone fortress) are also 5pmm. and they don;t even get chaos keywords to benefit from buffs. XD

w1zard wrote:
To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm.

Oi! Enough of that heresy. 4pts is obviously the perfect cost for Infantry, as has been decided by the point gurus. Any suggestion otherwise is sheer madness.

 lolman1c wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.

It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.

To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before.

Also the fact that Chaos guardsmen (in black stone fortress) are also 5pmm. and they don;t even get chaos keywords to benefit from buffs. XD

Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.

Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Allow me to be very clear, if it was not for weeks upon weeks of very detailed and comprehensive threads of armchair generals composing thousands of reasons why it should be 5-6, and then making claims like they're datasheets changing as the day went on yesterday, oof. I probably never would comment.

However, it's too good not to enjoy. It's amazing.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.

Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.

Or GW is wrong.

Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.

Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.

Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.

Or GW is wrong.

Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.

Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.

Are you counting orders in that? Because then Guard are really 5.5-6pts per model.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.

Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.

"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.

You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.

No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.

You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.

And Orks are still a better army with any of their Kultures (outside Snakebites, and I honestly plan to make a thread about these 6+++ factions).

I can't wait, I already have suggestions for the Iron hands.

 Trickstick wrote:
Are you counting orders in that? Because then Guard are really 5.5-6pts per model.

No, orders are the equivalent of guard auras. Making comparisons assuming IS are always ordered is like making comparisons of tac marines always being within a captain/lieutenant's aura, or assuming fire warriors always have markerlights, it is incredibly biased.

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.

Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.

Or GW is wrong.

Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.

Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.

My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.

Apologies, I assumed you were a guard player who wanted 4 ppm guardsmen reveling in the schadenfreude. Apparently you are a daemon player who for different reasons is reveling in the schadenfreude.

More or less, yeah.

Daemons are crazy good right now though. Mono nurgle, Nurgle + DG or even any variant of Khorne/Tzeentch/Nurgle + DG/TS is top tier competitive.

I really feel bad for GK players right now though holy crap. I've played guard since 3rd, and we were only competitive for small windows in 5th and 6th editions, but that was mostly neglect and GW simply not caring. However, I have never seen GW actively crap on a faction this hard. It is beyond "not even trying" territory now and is starting to feel like active trolling, and that is coming from an outsider's perspective.

Not really, no.

You have options of being: Mono nurgle

Or, using a Variation of:

Prince
Bloodletter
Pinkhorror

I unfortunately do not define a factions viability as troop choices and a single subfaction, and then one of the most common higher tier HQs across all chaos armies.

That would be equivalent to still calling BA top tier because people use strictly smash captains, or calling Knight Errants and Paladins OP because they are Knights.

These would be strictly flawed arguments.

That being said, that discussion is not on topic to point changes, so I don't intend to carry it further for the sake of this thread.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.

Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.

"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.

You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.

No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.

You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.

Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.

w1zard wrote:
I really feel bad for GK players right now though holy crap. I've played guard since 3rd, and we were only competitive for small windows in 5th and 6th editions, but that was mostly neglect and GW simply not caring. However, I have never seen GW actively crap on a faction this hard. It is beyond "not even trying" territory now and is starting to feel like active trolling, and that is coming from an outsider's perspective.

Yeah, I don't play the army either. But it's gotta be disheartening to be left to rot for so long like they have, only for GW to tease and troll them after so long.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

I unfortunately do not define a factions viability as troop choices and a single subfaction, and then one of the most common higher tier HQs across all chaos armies.

That would be equivalent to still calling BA top tier because people use strictly smash captains, or calling Knight Errants and Paladins OP because they are Knights.

That seems like a strange way to look at it considering people are placing at events with armies fielding over 100+ daemon bodies on the battlefield, with a 3 out of 4 gods represented in significant numbers and even a mono god daemon faction doing well. Not only that, but all of the daemon lists tend to have a decent amount of variety in their composition and strategy despite drawing from a similar pool of competitive units in the book. You could go heavy on bloodletters and bring a bloodmaster to provide additional synergy with the Skullreaver DP. You could bring multiple changecasters to keep multiple pink bombs buffed and help better synergize with your Thousand Sons detachment. You bring 30, 60, or 90+ plaguebearers to screen for a chaos knight or TS leviathan. You could even go 90-150 plaguebearers and just go super hard with scrivener/poxbringer/plague drones/gnarlmaw.

There was even a list in November with a support detachment of Renegades and Heretics that placed in the top 3 at an event. The allies? Thousand Sons and Daemons. The Thousand Sons and R/H and DG components of these high placing lists are not what's carrying them. Daemons is the common element. And considering these lists all play very differently, that speaks a lot to the strategic options afforded by top tier daemons units. This is not a case of the Loyal 32 or the Smash Captain where a one-trick combo is slotted in for kicks. Seriously, check out these lists: https://youtu.be/HraCf4oEdMg?t=816

They are all pretty different and they are all placing highly because daemons are powerful, varied, and flexible enough to synergize with them according to their specific needs.

This is indisputably more army composition variety and strategic variety than BA smash captains.

I mean, what would you call those lists, if not daemons? We certainly wouldn't say Thousand Sons or R/H or DG are the 4th most highly-placed army in November. It's daemons. And a relatively wide variety of them at that, especially compared to the lists from the top 3 November factions sitting right above it.

Personally, I'll running a list with Ahriman, a TS leviathan, 2x changecasters, 2x20 pinks, 30x plaguebearers, 30x bloodletters, and Skullreaver. And I expect it to smash face. With the latest updates to the daemons book, my list gets buffed to have over 30 extra points to spend on whatever I want. I'm thinking about adding 2 extra nurgling bases for 2 x 4 nurglings since they are ridiculously amazing objective holders. Daemons are really in an incredible spot right now.

For casual play, you should see how much Slaanesh lists got buffed by the points changes. In the tactica thread mono Slaanesh players are reporting 300+ points savings in their 1500 points lists. 300 free points to spend in a 1500 pt list! That is insane

Not only that, but with the greater daemons buffs (all great for casual play btw), some people (blackmage of all people ) are thinking GUO's might start to see some resurgence in the competitive scene.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.

Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.

Or GW is wrong.

Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.

Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.

My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.

....? Daemons are average right now though. Unless it's Slaaneshi.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.

Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.

"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.

You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.

No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.

You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.

Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.

Hasn't this been the state of the game since 3rd edition? GW rolls out some new gakky rules that are balanced like gak, everybody hates them, everybody complains, but despite being collectively miserable the community still goes along and updates their list in battered wife behavior? It's not like this is some new precedent, it's just GW being "good 'ol" GW.

Are you kidding? Ork models are some of the most expensive models for points in GW line up. XD everyone who went out and bought 5 Traktor cannons spent like £135. For like a few hundred points. Right now with primaris on ebay I bought I full 2000pts army for like £100. Although, I am now 1,700 thanks to CA. XD

But yeah, we do all fall in line... but then again I haven't bought anything direct from GW (apart from older small characters you can't get anywhere else) in years... muahahahaaa.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.

Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.

Or GW is wrong.

Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.

Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.

My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.

....? Daemons are average right now though. Unless it's Slaaneshi.

Hyperbole.

w1zard wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.

It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.

To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before. Armored sentinels vs Scout sentinels is now a choice between tough vs mobile for the same points cost.

In terms of external balance maybe, but it would be pretty screwed up regarding internal balance. Conscripts are trash and will continue to be trash until they get a rules change, them being cheaper than infantry squads won't suddenly make them better. And veterans at 6ppm just cost too much when compared to scions, they're 3ppm cheaper but they have to pay for a transport to actually get anywhere, whereas scions get native deepstrike. With the drop to 5ppm per model and the adjacent drops to transport costs and plasma/melta costs they actually look like they're worth running now.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the numerous threads and discussions about why guardsmen should be 5ppm but the goal with this CA seems to have been making units that see little board time more attractive, rather than nerfing stuff. Changes made seem to reflect that, units which didn't see the board got points drops, units which oppressed other choices took hits to encourage diversity. Moving infantry squads to 5ppm would have worked against that goal to a degree.

This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .

On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.

Salt donkey wrote:
This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .

On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.

Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .

On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.

Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.

Are you saying that people have a right to call GW terrible at balance until they are able to ensure that all factions are pretty much on an even-playing field? If this was the case then only games like chess and GO would be considered ok From a balance perspective (I.E. games which starts players with the exact same peices). Now througohout the years GW has been better and worse at balancing 40k, but claiming they have clue at all is either dishonest or naive. How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

Salt donkey wrote:
How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.

Salt donkey wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .

On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.

Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.

Are you saying that people have a right to call GW terrible at balance until they are able to ensure that all factions are pretty much on an even-playing field? If this was the case then only games like chess and GO would be considered ok From a balance perspective (I.E. games which starts players with the exact same peices). Now througohout the years GW has been better and worse at balancing 40k, but claiming they have clue at all is either dishonest or naive. How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

Well to start off you trim down the amount of redundant factions and units that can be consolidated into single books or datasheets. The amount of bloat in 40k is hilarious when you look at just the obscene amount of pointless units that have been added to the game that could be resolved by just turning Sternguard/Vanguard or Scions into flat upgrades. Splitting the game would also be helpful to prevent Apocalypse from creeping into 40k ever again. Things like Baneblades, Imperial Knights, Glaives, and Gargants have no place in normal 40k games. And of course they have no clue how to balance gak, again, name an edition where every faction was relatively on equal footing. Or the fact that GW even uses a turn-based system which always is biased to first turn advantage. Hell even Chess is biased to white. Just the basic structure of 40k is fundamentally flawed and makes anything but the most extreme and radical attempt to change the game doomed to fail as the turn system itself needs to go the way of the dodo.

Karol wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

And this is where you are wrong. Top GK lists gained some points to play around, other competitive lists received almost nothing, if not straight out nerfs. You say that everyone received points reduction, but that is not true. Only those people that played sub optimal models got them, and that is a good thing. I didn't see banana captains go down, i saw wardens go down. Have you ever seen a warden on the table?

Onyl Admech, Necrons and GK received buffs to models and weapons that they were already using, everyone else only received buffs on models you never saw on the table (and tank commanders ).

This CA is one of the better publications made by GW, they reduced the gap between good lists and bad lists by a huge margin.
Is this enough for GK? No it isn't, the gap was really too big and while it is now surely reduced, they are still a mid-bottom faction (still in a much better situation than pre-CA2018).

Plasma getting cheaper is suboptimal? Cawl getting cheaper is suboptimal? And your saying that somehow by eldar not getting cheaper farseers or s spears their lists got worse. Go on buy a GK army, and play it against a "weaker" pre CA eldar list with you using all the points downgrades, or play against IG or an IG soup, am sure the games are going to be a lot more balanced then they were before.

What the hell is a top GK army anyway NDKS, maybe some interceptors and a ton of IG or SoB. What a great way to play GK. take as few GK models in it. I wonder if eldar have to take 1000pts of tau to be mid tier.

Oh that's right, plasma is a big problem for knights, it would be a big issue if the plasma sources around that are actually played received a buff... good thing that it didn't happen! Plasma didn't get cheaper, only marine's plasma did, how many plasma guns you saw running around in marine's hands? None? That's right! Because it was sub-optimal! Guard plasma guns which were the only plasma guns you saw around are at the same exact cost as before! Veteran and scion plasma got a bit cheaper, but veteran plasma has never been seen in 8th, and scion plasma has not been seen in the last year.

Cawl sub-optimal? Obviously not, he is an auto include, but of which faction? Oh that's right, Admech! If you did actually read what i wrote, what did i say? "No faction was externally buffed, except GK, Admech and Necrons". Are you really complaining that Admech and Necrons are getting a buff? GK were at the bottom, but those other 2 factions held the next 2 places, so it's only right that they got a buff together with GK.

And yes, games with GK against Eldar are going to be more balanced by definition. Because it's like playing pre-Ca2018, except that you play with 200 bonus points. Is it going to be balanced? No, Eldar still have the edge, but surely having ad advantage cannot make it less balanced.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?

I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)

I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.

Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples

During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.

Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.

So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.

BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”