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.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/30 21:24:43
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
Using this logic all a codex needs to be "good" is one unit that fits into soup. So BA is top of the power tier because a smash captain can fit into soup. Mono viability has no bearing on this edition so should in no way affect discussions of balance. On top of that, we should really only look at soup with any balance. So any imperium codex on its own does not need fixing because there is an imperium soup that is strong thus how that individual piece is unimportant. Grey knights power is pointless to discuss because "imperium soup" is strong and the idea is allies for the meta so the answer to how to fix grey knights is "who cares".
Using this metric all we really need to do is fix ncrons and we are good to go. Silly dakka worrying about individual codexes over faction balance
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/01/30 22:16:10
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
One must ask then, by this logic, why are we ranking armies by codex, instead factions of by allies pool? We should just be looking at "Imperial" armies and "Eldar" armies, and individual standout units, as opposed to being concerned about how individual codex books like GK or DE play.
Ultimately however, a lot of the playerbase, probably the majority, still does play mono armies. That concept and concern over how they play in such a state is relevant. Some do it for fluff or because only one faction interests them, others because they have no allies options, but it is a thing. Yes the rules make it easy to use allies, but most of the game is still structured around individual books with allies being afterthought, supported by functionality almost nowhere outside the detachment rules, largely just a couple of wargear items.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/30 22:21:02
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
I fundamentally disagree with your premise here.
Many MANY people choose to play mono codex. So it is relevant to people how mono codex factions compare.
Yes, soup is best. Power gamers should and will soup. But some people want to just play their codex, but play it to its best potential. In fact I'd say a majority of people play that way.
Of we were purely looking for what was best to take in a tournament - yeah, you'd be right. But a tier list can be so much more, and rating mono lists is a useful and important part of that.
There absolutely is a mono meta, people play it every day in their thousands.
Having two separate tier lists would be useful. One for tournament play (where we have good data) and one for mono codex play which is common in non-tournament style games (which likely account for the overwhelming majority of games played). I don't know anyone who plays with PL but most average 40k players at the store play non-ITC/ETC missions and more frequently with mono codexes than soup. A separate mono codex tier list would be great to have.
Stux is right, there is definitely a mono meta. Competitive 40k is only a small fraction of the total number of games being played out there, right now, at this very moment.
It would be interesting to take tournament data and compare mono faction lists against each other while excluding any lists that soup. Sure, this kind of tier list won't help you win a tournament, but it will tell you how your mono faction army is likely to perform in a random pick up game at your FLGS. Anyone want to take a stab at it?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/01/30 23:00:28
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
I think I just stated it wrongly in the context of this game. It's true to say that Guard being the best army in the game has no real meaning because everyone takes allies in competitive if they can. I just think the codex on it's own would probably top any other codex - that comes from a lot of experience playing with it and against it in mono scenarios. I also think they are the best detachment for an allied force too - the data on 40kstats might not indicate guard primaries as having the highest winrate in the game but I believe that is quite watered down.
For example - if you take IG and space marines or IG and admech allies - that is not nearly as strong as IG and knights but it all shows up as guard primary. My statement that guard is the best army in the game right now is really more in the context of soup. IG with a single knight detachment is still undoubtedly the best army in the game right now. It is a list that everyone expect they are going to run into and they are taking account for it but they still likely wont be able to beat it. Me personally that is what I am brining to LVO. I think it gives me the best chance to win.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
I fundamentally disagree with your premise here.
Many MANY people choose to play mono codex. So it is relevant to people how mono codex factions compare.
Yes, soup is best. Power gamers should and will soup. But some people want to just play their codex, but play it to its best potential. In fact I'd say a majority of people play that way.
Of we were purely looking for what was best to take in a tournament - yeah, you'd be right. But a tier list can be so much more, and rating mono lists is a useful and important part of that.
There absolutely is a mono meta, people play it every day in their thousands.
Really this is true - and the majority of matches are played mono vs mono. We can only rely on our experience here because there is no Data to support it. IMO for mono play it would look like this.
TOP
IG DE IK
Orks
Middle
CWE TS Nids
Tau
DW DG Harliequens
Bottom
CSM Custodes
Space marines (all factions minus DW)
Necrons
My opinion ofc. Might even be missing some and the order isn't really that important - these are the teirs IMO though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/30 23:18:46
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Valentine009 wrote: The problem with both Kastellans and Kataphrons is that they are hard countered by Helvarins. As a result I'm not sure the knight match is as good as it seems.
Hellverines hardly ever show up in competitive play. I'm bringing some to LVO though
Guard received one of the biggest buffs in the most recent CA. Reduced cost of a brigade with sentinels going down in price. A supreme command of Russ going down a whopping 75 points at a minimum. Also you aren't talking about skill - you are talking about prevalence. In a meta in which termagants are doing well (termagants are quite terrible) There isn't a great prevalence of guard. There is really no question that guard are the top army right now.
Heh. Guard is a very good army, but what exactly makes you think they're the top army?
Going by purely win % when it's the primary faction, Guard are 5th.
All 3 Eldar, and Thousand Sons apparently, have higher win %. Guard has a win % of 53.89%. That's certainly good, but It's definitely not "unquestionable" that they're the top.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
I think I just stated it wrongly in the context of this game. It's true to say that Guard being the best army in the game has no real meaning because everyone takes allies in competitive if they can. I just think the codex on it's own would probably top any other codex - that comes from a lot of experience playing with it and against it in mono scenarios. I also think they are the best detachment for an allied force too - the data on 40kstats might not indicate guard primaries as having the highest winrate in the game but I believe that is quite watered down.
For example - if you take IG and space marines or IG and admech allies - that is not nearly as strong as IG and knights but it all shows up as guard primary. My statement that guard is the best army in the game right now is really more in the context of soup. IG with a single knight detachment is still undoubtedly the best army in the game right now. It is a list that everyone expect they are going to run into and they are taking account for it but they still likely wont be able to beat it. Me personally that is what I am brining to LVO. I think it gives me the best chance to win.
That's a much fairer statement. I semi-agree, though I think there is some close competition for strongest solo dex (Drukhari). Not that I think it matters at all, because best "solo" codex is simply not reflective of top tier.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Which is something that really should be looked at. I am cool with soup in and of itself, but every codex should be able to stand on its own two legs.
Soup should be an option to vary your builds and playstyles, not a necessity to compete.
Just my opinion though. Could be done by nerfing particularly offending units, adding drawbacks or whatever.
In the situation at hand codices should absolutely be rated with soup in mind, because that is what competitive is. Casual players won't need a tierlist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/31 00:13:32
Would be nice to have though. Xenomancers' take on it above looks pretty solid for anyone who's looking to play some games at their FLGS. If you're new to the game a regularly updated casual tier list would be a great way to avoid choosing any bottom tier factions while still giving you a lot more hobby options than a pure competitive tier list.
Just finished up our local mon-faction league. Came second with Deathwatch, to Alpha Legion. I guess it counts as a meta? It was a lot of fun and I recommend it. But I wouldn't, in a month of Sundays, try and derive any conclusions from it concerning competitive lists and win rate. Soup is king in 8th.
Nice dude. Actually there's another case for having a regularly updated mono faction tier list. I've been seeing lots of more casual local tourneys use the mono codex restriction specifically to shake up the ITC soup netlist meta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/31 00:38:48
Which is something that really should be looked at. I am cool with soup in and of itself, but every codex should be able to stand on its own two legs.
Soup should be an option to vary your builds and playstyles, not a necessity to compete.
Just my opinion though. Could be done by nerfing particularly offending units, adding drawbacks or whatever.
In the situation at hand codices should absolutely be rated with soup in mind, because that is what competitive is. Casual players won't need a tierlist.
Eh, no one NEEDS to play at all. Lots of casual players want a tier list though. Knowing where you stand is useful and interesting.
Xenomancers wrote: Me personally that is what I am brining to LVO. I think it gives me the best chance to win.
A Guard/Knight list? Thats what I did. Having attended a high level event as a noob, my experience is that the Castellan is the only thing keeping my list and the enemy at bay. I took the triple tank commander list and while the firepower was nice, it really struggled to gain objectives. It certainly is good but by no means top. Its too easy to drop a game or two along the way against some match ups.
I was unlucky to draw a triple shadowsword list first round and it went first, lost the Castellan to the third shadowsword and it was downhill from there. Ended up 4/1/3 (should have been 5/3!)
When you talk mono-list I do agree that Guard is very good. Heck the Shadowsword itself becomes a bit of a beast.
Horst wrote: Man, the triple Shadowsword list looks fun, but it has so many weaknesses...
Yes the guy was just having fun. My mate tabled him in 2 or 3 turns with Harlequins. But it shows that you can't bring a single Shadowsword and expect much.
There also isn't a "mono" meta. That is a concept that only exists on Dakka Dakka. The intent of 8th edition was to allow allies in a less restricted manner. You could argue that's bad for the game, but arguing that it isn't a core pillar of the editions design is ridiculous.
"Does the army function as a mono-faction?"
The answer is the same as the answer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It might surprise you - it's "who cares?"
I fundamentally disagree with your premise here.
Many MANY people choose to play mono codex. So it is relevant to people how mono codex factions compare.
Yes, soup is best. Power gamers should and will soup. But some people want to just play their codex, but play it to its best potential. In fact I'd say a majority of people play that way.
Of we were purely looking for what was best to take in a tournament - yeah, you'd be right. But a tier list can be so much more, and rating mono lists is a useful and important part of that.
There absolutely is a mono meta, people play it every day in their thousands.
Indeed. In my gaming group we usually only play soup because the new allied army is not yet large enough to be played mono in 2000points.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument. Because mono armies aren't really played. Imperial soup more or less always includes guard. Primary faction doesn't really indicate anything - I'm not even sure it means you spend the most points on that detachment or anything. I guess It's the detachment your warlord comes from. This data is decent for detecting trends - but it is not detailed enough to really give you an idea of what army is the strongest right now.
Actually Xenomancers, that makes your argument flawed. Your tier list of armies only exists in a world where all codexes are played mono, and thats not a practical measure of anything at all. 40k is played by building lists from multiple dexes, the only sensible way to tier each dex is by the strongest list they can possibly contribute to.
Not that I think that data there is a very good measure of it either, I think it's a bad idea to take that at face value with zero nuance, it's guaranteed to be wrong.
Maybe a stupid question, but much of a discrepancy is there between good and bad armies, what ever they are played as soup or not? It seems to me, that armies that are good do ok as mono, and of course as soups too. It doesn't really matter if someone compares GK as mono codex or as part of a soup, to other mono books or soups. They are always worse. At the same time something like IG or Inari does well as mono army and as soup. It seems like the only promblematic armies, at least as tier lists goes, are armies that do not soup, because they can't. But if one looks as orcs for example they kind of a soup too, they just soup with their own codex. Different units go in to different kulture detachments.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
The actual data does not exist to support my argument.
Yup.
Primary faction does mean the faction you spent the most points on in your army, not your warlord's detachment.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
It doesn't make Xeno's argument flawed. It means it's answering a different question.
Question 1: "What is the tier list for typical play?"
Question 2: "What is the tier list for mono-codex play?"
Both are valid questions.
For Mono, I'm close to Xeno's list, but with a few changes:
-IK at the bottom end of Middle
-CWE between DE and Orks
-Marines right above Harlies in Middle
-GK are different enough to rank seperately - at the very bottom
I see what you're saying, but I think you got the labels wrong. Mono codex IS typical play for the majority of people.
The lists would be, in my opinion:
Tiers for organised play.
Tiers for casual play.
Some people will snort and scoff at the second one I'm sure, but I feel it's important. Because it's what most people actually play, and because it is useful to know if you bring say pure Raven Guard how screwed you are in a Pick Up Game!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/31 14:39:43
You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
8th edition was designed to allow allies. That doesn't mean we cannot evaluate the strength of the codexes individually, they just have to be viewed in a broader context.
Of course none of this changes that the Imperial Guard crew here use "mono" as a distraction carnifex when attempting to create smoke & mirrors to suggest that IG isn't blatantly OP. Something like 25% of the lists in LVO will feature Imperial Guard. If they continue to get better, and Ynnari get nerfed, we'll see ourselves in a scenario where tournaments will be an IG vs IG fest.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/31 15:03:34
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
'"Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction.'
It's not as simple as "Casual = mono". But you do see a lot more mono is casual games.
My meta is very casual. But Dark Angels fronted by 6 squads of Skittari troops doesn't bother anyone. If I run a Harlequin Troupe + Master instead of Banshees in my CWE list, nobody minds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You absolutely can compare Codex A to Codex B.
If they added Codex Cadia, which was identical to the IG codex except Guardsmen were 3ppm, we absolutely could compare Codex A to Codex B.
More concretely, we can compare the SM book to the CWE book, and come away with a fairly solid understanding of which is better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/31 15:19:39
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
Because the game is fundamentally designed to to include soup. There is no reason to make a comparison when it carries 0 weight.
I can compare a codex to Pickle Pea. Will he give me the Pump-A-Rum? Who knows. But it's not a good comparison.
That's the point.
Some comparisons are better than others.
Balance should be viewed as what it is in practice, not a dakkadakka pipe dream that goes against the core structure of the game itself.
A mono restriction is entirely casual. Can you point me to a major tournament circuit that uses mono restrictions? ETC, ITC, NOVA, etc?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/31 16:01:18
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately however, a lot of the playerbase, probably the majority, still does play mono armies. That concept and concern over how they play in such a state is relevant. Some do it for fluff or because only one faction interests them, others because they have no allies options, but it is a thing. Yes the rules make it easy to use allies, but most of the game is still structured around individual books with allies being afterthought, supported by functionality almost nowhere outside the detachment rules, largely just a couple of wargear items.
+1 to this. I play mono armies for flavor purposes. It's hard to make allied armies look like a coherent force instead of a hodgepodge of whatever units I could grab on the way out.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Asmodios wrote: Using this logic all a codex needs to be "good" is one unit that fits into soup. So BA is top of the power tier because a smash captain can fit into soup. Mono viability has no bearing on this edition so should in no way affect discussions of balance. On top of that, we should really only look at soup with any balance. So any imperium codex on its own does not need fixing because there is an imperium soup that is strong thus how that individual piece is unimportant. Grey knights power is pointless to discuss because "imperium soup" is strong and the idea is allies for the meta so the answer to how to fix grey knights is "who cares".
Using this metric all we really need to do is fix ncrons and we are good to go. Silly dakka worrying about individual codexes over faction balance
Fething thank you. Exalted.
Sorry Marmatag, you are just wrong. There is something to the idea that soup needs to be balanced, but nerfing a unit because it could possibly be used in an overpowered synergistic combo with another unit from a whole different codex is not the way to do it. It makes it so those units are useless outside of that specific overpowered synergistic combo.
Imagine balancing space marines assuming a knight castellan were always present. You wouldn't because it would make space marines too weak if that were not the case. The solution is to nerf the knight castellan, or somehow nerf the ability for a knight castellan to be taken outside of a mono-IK force.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/31 16:20:53
Balance in practice suggests that blood angels have problems because only one of their models - the Smash Captain - is seeing any play. One single thing, out of a fairly large range. Just because balance is viewed in a broader sense doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the viability of units in a codex. Assault marines are not viable. Smash Captains having use doesn't change that assault marines don't.
This is actually a pretty easy to navigate if you aren't being intentionally obtuse.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/31 16:17:44
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Marmatag wrote: You can't measure tiers in casual games, because there is no control. "Mono" is a casual gameplay restriction. If you're going to claim a casual meta exists, you need to prove it. Local metas exist, which are generally casual, but those are influenced more by "who has what" rather than "what is good." And you can't compare local metas A and B.
Disagree. You can compare Codex A to Codex B, without involving soup, easily.
You not wanting to for whatever reason has no bearing on that.
Because the game is fundamentally designed to to include soup. There is no reason to make a comparison when it carries 0 weight.
I can compare a codex to Pickle Pea. Will he give me the Pump-A-Rum? Who knows. But it's not a good comparison.
That's the point.
Some comparisons are better than others.
Balance should be viewed as what it is in practice, not a dakkadakka pipe dream that goes against the core structure of the game itself.
A mono restriction is entirely casual. Can you point me to a major tournament circuit that uses mono restrictions? ETC, ITC, NOVA, etc?
I don't care about tournaments, not really. I care about whether my Dark Angels stand a chance against Dave's Harlequins.
This is REAL. These games happen way more than optimised Imperial Soup Vs optimised Eldar soup.
