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.
I'm of the opinion that we may not ever see a "9th Edition". The way the game is set up now, they could update armies and the core rules incrementally without ever needing to increase the edition number.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
We're gonna need an apothecary. We've got a burn victim.
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
...
THE CATEGORY IT SHOULD STICK INTO IS SOUP.
There's no "primary" faction caveat in a reasonable fricking world where that list should be Guard because everyone knows the heavy fricking lifting of the list is being done by the Castellan.
If FLG is giving them data where Guard lists with Castellans and BA/Custodes/whatever elements are really doing the heavy lifting but are classed as Guard? That's disingenuous as hell, and quite frankly inaccurate data.
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is about the Bolter Rule, this is proof positive the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
The people who wrote the rules for DW didn't talk with the people who wrote the Bolter rule. They didn't realize they can field units with 3++ saves and 4 s5 ap-1 shots per model, re-rolling misses and wounding on 2+. PER MODEL.
I mean, they don't know that because they actually can't do that, but, details I guess.
Best DW can do is 4 shots, hitting on 3s rerolling (character aura) wounding on 2s rerolling (SIA + Mission Tactics), no AP, OR hitting on 3s, S4 AP-2, reroll 1s to wound, with 9" rapid fire range rather than 12".
They can't have both AP and 2+ to wound.
"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!"
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
...
THE CATEGORY IT SHOULD STICK INTO IS SOUP.
There's no "primary" faction caveat in a reasonable fricking world where that list should be Guard because everyone knows the heavy fricking lifting of the list is being done by the Castellan.
If FLG is giving them data where Guard lists with Castellans and BA/Custodes/whatever elements are really doing the heavy lifting but are classed as Guard? That's disingenuous as hell, and quite frankly inaccurate data.
While I agree soup is obviously different than a pure faction they aren't simply turning over faction win rates like that. They are turning over complete statistical breakdowns all the war to individual unit/ faction win rates (for example the win rate changes depending on vostroyan vs catachan). The data breakdown they did was incredibly thorough and that gives me a tremendous amount of hope. GW isn't simply receiving "1001 points of guard won so guard is broken" they are getting a full breakdown all the way to unit level
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
While I agree soup is obviously different than a pure faction they aren't simply turning over faction win rates like that. They are turning over complete statistical breakdowns all the war to individual unit/ faction win rates (for example the win rate changes depending on vostroyan vs catachan). The data breakdown they did was incredibly thorough and that gives me a tremendous amount of hope. GW isn't simply receiving "1001 points of guard won so guard is broken" they are getting a full breakdown all the way to unit level
I’m surprised you’re not concerned. What do you think GW will do when they see Infantry squads en masse in any successful Imperial soup list and taken in huuuuge quantities in lists generally? I’ll give you a clue. It rhymes with ‘turf’.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/26 16:11:15
EnTyme wrote: I'm of the opinion that we may not ever see a "9th Edition". The way the game is set up now, they could update armies and the core rules incrementally without ever needing to increase the edition number.
I think this will be true for a while, but eventually all those incremental changes will add up to a big-'ole mess that will have to get cleaned up somehow. If it isn't 9E, it'll be 8.5E and involve a new book.
I'd expect something like the transition from 6E to 7E, which were basically the same ruleset, but with previous FAQs applied and a revamped Psychic Phase.
What really made 7E different from 6E was all the Formations and crazy list building shenanigans.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
There is no way Bolter Drill will be official in the FAQ, that's not how it works. If you are going to do a beta test, you actually have to give time to get the results. If it becomes official, it will be in CA 2019. That won't stop people using it of course, but expecting it to be official is a pipe dream.
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
bullyboy wrote: There is no way Bolter Drill will be official in the FAQ, that's not how it works. If you are going to do a beta test, you actually have to give time to get the results. If it becomes official, it will be in CA 2019. That won't stop people using it of course, but expecting it to be official is a pipe dream.
I agree to an extent. I certainly feel that the "official" rule won't go into affect until CA2019, but that doesn't mean they won't tweak the Beta a little with the FAQ. Given that GW release the Beta rule alone just a few months before the next FAQ, it seems likely that they may actually incorporate some of the initial feedback they asked for into the FAQ itself. Like a final tweak to really shake any bugs out before the final version
At least, that is my hope. The Bolter Discipline is a step in the right direction, but is doesn't do enough for the units that need the help.
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
Wait? What? So the assumption here is that denying the SH Aux detachment from taking Strats would needlessly punish Primarhs? If you are taking Guillie, Magnus or Morty and NOT also taking UMs, Tsons or DG in other detachments to get access to their strats, you are already trying to game the system and there should be a drawback. I would amend that the SH Aux should still be able to USE Strats, but not give access to the Factions strats. So a Castellan or Primach could still use the Factions strats ... if you also take a non-SH Aux detachment of that Faction. That might fix the Castellan taking solo.
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/26 16:32:31
I'm thinking the next Big FAQ may well include some of the following:
- Points changes, stuff that missed out on chapter approved due to time of printing and anything that has proved a problem since. This would include the castellan, some dark eldar stuff (dissies, Gots and talos maybe), possible a couple of Ork things like the new buggies could do with a drop and a few of their weapon options are out of synch like the power Klaw and twin big shoota. Those and god forbid tactical and basic chaos marines could drop a point or two (this last one is a pipe dream obvs).
- New Beta rules: Including the better bolter rule, maybe an alteration to how soup is used (I favour increasing the cost of statagems used by and reducing the command points given by detachment of a different faction to your warlord) and perhaps something to change how models interact with flyers, I hope for them to no longer block movement.
- Change up some of the army abilities, hopefully adding chapter tactics to vehicle for marines and chaos, possibly altering some others like the dark eldar 4++ one and other outliers that are just better than the other options including possible the -1 to hit ones.
- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSCFAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
I hear that but looking at the Primarchs none are reliant on Strategems. With my suggestion you can still use their warlord traits and psychic powers and if there is some super strategem combo you want then just take a supreme command.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is about the Bolter Rule, this is proof positive the left hand isn't talking to the right hand.
The people who wrote the rules for DW didn't talk with the people who wrote the Bolter rule. They didn't realize they can field units with 3++ saves and 4 s5 ap-1 shots per model, re-rolling misses and wounding on 2+. PER MODEL. DW vet squads are already bloated in points cost, the only change I can see is restricting the unit to a set number of SS/SB combos. Only 2 per squad? Or making the combination cost appropriate.
Make it a dedicated combo for the model, like Termies. YOu can take a SS/SB on this model, but it's cost is 15-20 points.
DW will need some tweaks, but that set up did not do so well at LVO. Perhaps when they have BBolters? Not sure though.
This is the most likely given GW's track record, but hopefully:
1) Changing Agents of Vect to be 1/game (Reasoning: The GSC equivalent just got changed to 1/game)
2) Something for the Knight, whether a points increase on the Castellan, capping the Invulnerable at 4++, or both (Reasoning: Something needs to be done to fix the Castellan)
3) Beta bolter rule becoming official (Reasoning: It's a good change and most people are probably using it anyway)
4) Some change to limit soup (Reasoning: Something has to be done to fix it) what though is anyone's guess. Brood Brothers style rule, stratagems limited, who knows? But they need to do something.
Who was using vect twice at a cost of 8 CP? Maybe against Castellans, but who cares about that?
I think the bigger question is...what changes can we rule out as possible?
Given the assassins I doubt we will see a reduction in CP generation, because of how the Callidus interacts with it. 4 point IS are also probably here to stay given GSC's setup, but mortars will be nerfed a bit.
.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
so hundreds of points of tax on already overpriced models? good plan
Alternatively, if you are taking a Primarch, also take a detachment with some of their legion to gain access to that Factions strats. Ya know, like you should already be taking instead of cherry-picking models.
That's the big issue with Soup is that there is no downside to just taking whatever floats your boat instead of building a thematic list that has limitations.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: We won't see any major changes to GK in a FAQ, as their problems are strictly numbers based. Their Anti tank weapons are glorified HBs. Their points costs are insane. Their ammo stratagems need to be basic unit abilities, ala deathwatch.
You could overnight make GK basically viable if you made their Psybolt ammo a point cost option on their units. They lack no real definition currently, as their current chosen enemy (Chaos daemons) have a stratagem that basically nullifies their special ability.
GK are to D&D rangers what Deathwatch is to the D&D Expanded Ranger.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
Wayniac wrote: Until ITC stops skewing the way they count factions, I don't think their results are going to be valid. They consider balance based on winrate, not composition. They count factions in a weird way so that you can have soup but go down as "Astra Militarum"
They split it down by 1. primary faction 2. secondary factor 3. detachment 4. unit.... its the single most precise data set that has ever been compiled for 40k. I mean have you even bothered to go listen to the breakdowns they have done? Its all 100% volunteer work as well so if you would like to change how the data is organized you are 100% welcome to but honestly the way they are doing it is very good and the guy volunteering to do the work clearly has a background in stats and is doing an amazing job.
If I bring a Castellan, Loyal 32, and a bit of BA...am I soup or Guard?
The answer SHOULD be soup. But no--it apparently is Guard because "the most model count" is Guard.
Yeah, I find that annoying but as long as "soup" exists they do need a category to stick it in so primary faction is probably the best way to go. They also are doing by unit breakdown. So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate. If FLG is taking the time to look at these lists all these different ways it means the developers are asking for that data and looking at it.
Just want to correct this as the number I have seen publiahed are guard mono ie the weakest way to play them is running 50% win rate Guard plus any allies is 55% to 60% and Guard primary ie more points (new for LVO) plus raven Castellen is 60 plus%. Second only to Yannari.
However a knight primary lists including a Castellen had a 48% win rate apparently.
So once again it's the combo not the individual models that are a problem.
Either you look at the math of the unit, or you look at the math of the model. Saying it's just a 1 wound model is correct, but also completely irrelevant. The unit is the focus, because the unit is what's putting out the overwhelming dakka for less than 250pts, with a 3++ save.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/26 17:13:03
buddha wrote: The easiest fix for the castellan meta isn't even to change its points but that make the super heavy auxiliary detachment in general not able to use strategems. Fixed and doesn't punish pure knight players as you have to take a full detachment to get any real use from them.
Except it also screws over other stuff that is balanced. Like Primarchs.
Then make it so the Super Heavy Aux. Detachment cannot use Stratagems, unless another detachment that generates at least 3 CP is chosen from the same codex.
If you wanna use a Knight Super Heavy Aux, then you need to take a Super Heavy Detachment with a Questoris and 2 Armigers as well (so if you're a pure Knights player of maybe House Terryn, and you want to bring a Raven Castellan as well for ranged support, you're still able to).
If you're an Ultramarines player and you want to bring rowboat girlyman, then all you need to do is make sure you have an Ultramarines Battalion in there. Easy.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
Easy there with the personal attacks tiger.
And au contraire, you clearly haven't been following my posts if you don't think I've looked at the data and analysed it myself. How do you think I came to my conclusions? Did you assume I made them up from a position of no knowledge? Shame on you.
Here's some facts for you, that I have collected myself. Though they're not directly connected to a discussion around the Guard and Castellan problem. E. - guess the faction.
Spoiler:
- 2 players went 5-1. 62 total players went 5-1. Every faction except GK represented.
- 46% win percentage.
- Top placed player finish 16th.
- Mono Space Marines (generally considered an underperforming faction) finished higher and had the same win percentage.
- Mono Tau (generally considered a mid-tier faction) also finished higher and had a higher win percentage.
- The top ITC player going into the event dropped to third after taking this faction and competing in a tournament he won he previous year.
- 5 players in top 100, despite being 8% of the total player base.
Re Guard + Castellan, you'll know, of course, that Infantry were the most taken unit bar none and that Guard and Knight detachments made up 30% of the player base combined at LVO? Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO? Do you believe its a pure coincidence that the Castellan and Guard friends (more than the loyal 32 I might add) list performed very well relatively and actually won the event? Your stats prove there is a problem with balance, not the opposite. As I said - a player who's faction is in the upper echelons of win percentages (and has been for an incredibly long time) probably thinks things are really balanced. That is your bias talking, not the stats though I'm afraid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/26 17:22:19
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
That is stupid are FAQ holograms, so they can't change the rules, because they have to write them down ? FAQ are writen down, so what stops them from puting an extra A or extra AP or change to GK ammo in the faq. They did bigger changes in the past in FAQ. They changed the whole deep strike rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/26 17:33:53
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.
Asmodios wrote: So they know that while the castalin list is well over 50% win rate guard without a castalin are sitting at a healthy 50% win rate.
That’s possibly because those competitive IG players who elect not to take a Castellan are generally such poor players that even with the most broken of tools they can only eke out a win half the time?
Considering how well balanced statistically the LVO was not sure why you think the next FAQ won’t improve it. GWs updates this edition are clearly working and Moving armies closer to that magical 50% win rate. Heck after the last command point nerf to knights the castalin list dropped from an almost 80% win rate down to 60%
You must have watched a different LVO to me mate. One where the top 8 wasn’t dominated by Castellan + IG and Ynarri.
I suppose things would seem well balanced to a player of one of the factions in the 56+% win rate huh?
Did you actually take a time to look at the statistical data or are thousands of games worth of data invalidated by what you saw in the top 8?
The statistical data you speak of hasn’t been made public has it. So no, I haven’t looked at it and neither have you. I’ve listened to podcasts though and I’ve heard the dubious recounting of these stats by the Falcon. I’ve heard him immediately make excuses or play down stats that didn’t suit what they wanted to portray (that the game is balanced).
Regardless, there are currently stats from exactly two tournaments uploaded in the 40kstats website that is public. Hardly the greatest of sample sizes. According to the stats Eldar Corsairs are the best faction in the game. That sound legit to you?
We’ll see how the stats shake up over the course of the year.
So every player that didn't take a Castalin is trash...... good to see your contributing to the conversation and backing up your statements with statistics
The data is 100% public knowledge its all on BCP you can break it down however you want. Chapter tactics did a 2 hour breakdown of it and another hour on signals from the front line. Your complaints with the data are laughable
1. They cover that factions like Eldar corsairs have too small of a data set is covered maybe if you actually listen you will pick up on things like this
2. Some of the "excuses" by the falcon were on point to anyone actually listening. For example, how the top 2 ork players ran into the same anti ork flying circus build and both lost out by a single victory point.
Its always amazing that people like you have all the data you need available to you but you wont take the time and energy to break it down and when someone does you discredit it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what the data should have said. Im just glad that GW is looking at actual stats other then people like you who do nothing but cry on dakka and ignore facts tyou dont like
Easy there with the personal attacks tiger.
And au contraire, you clearly haven't been following my posts if you don't think I've looked at the data and analysed it myself. How do you think I came to my conclusions? Did you assume I made them up from a position of no knowledge? Shame on you.
Here's some facts for you, that I have collected myself. Though they're not directly connected to a discussion around the Guard and Castellan problem. E. - guess the faction.
Spoiler:
- 2 players went 5-1. 62 total players went 5-1. Every faction except GK represented.
- 46% win percentage.
- Top placed player finish 16th.
- Mono Space Marines (generally considered an underperforming faction) finished higher and had the same win percentage.
- Mono Tau (generally considered a mid-tier faction) also finished higher and had a higher win percentage.
- The top ITC player going into the event dropped to third after taking this faction and competing in a tournament he won he previous year.
- 5 players in top 100, despite being 8% of the total player base.
Re Guard + Castellan, you'll know, of course, that Infantry were the most taken unit bar none and that Guard and Knight detachments made up 30% of the player base combined at LVO? Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO? Do you believe its a pure coincidence that the Castellan and Guard friends (more than the loyal 32 I might add) list performed very well relatively and actually won the event? Your stats prove there is a problem with balance, not the opposite. As I said - a player who's faction is in the upper echelons of win percentages (and has been for an incredibly long time) probably thinks things are really balanced. That is your bias talking, not the stats though I'm afraid.
text removed
Reds8n
I said that both yanarri and castalin lists were high too high win%...... but that a vast majority of faction fell into a healthy win percentage. At no point did i make the claim that the game is perfectly balanced or we should throw up our hands and say "well that's close enough". The fact is that other than a couple underperforming and a few over performing lists, most lists fell into a very balanced win%. Also with the number of lists that a castalin and yannari effectively invalidate its not unreasonable to think a small fix to those 2 lists won't bring factions even closer to balance (such as tyranids who anything but gaunt spam is essentially invalidated by the castalin).
Its also laughable that you claim "Do you think people are taking weak lists they believe will have no chance of winning LVO?" meanwhile your excuse for guard lists without a castalin having a balanced 50% win percentage is that those are just weak lists from crap players..... you should try not to contradict yourself with your arguments
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/26 18:06:26
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
Although, we shouldn't base balance off the worst codex in the history of 8th. DW are what GK is supposed to be, only against Xenos. GK are supposed to be this good, against Chaos. Only problem, GK sucks at all phases except when properly buffed facing troops in melee. I don't think DW were in tended to be this good.
That being said, I would love to see SM in general be brought closer to this level, rather than DW being nerfed down to GK levels.
If you want to use a Primarch and get Stratagems, then run a Supreme Command Detachment.
so hundreds of points of tax on already overpriced models? good plan
Alternatively, if you are taking a Primarch, also take a detachment with some of their legion to gain access to that Factions strats. Ya know, like you should already be taking instead of cherry-picking models.
That's the big issue with Soup is that there is no downside to just taking whatever floats your boat instead of building a thematic list that has limitations.
-
Then, instead of thinking of ways to nerf the soup lists.
Maybe GW ought to consider some way to buff mono-codex lists.
Ie, a detachment that can only be use by mono-codex armies, extra CPs, or 2nd relic for free, etc...
Why do people think Deathwatch needs nerfs? Yes, it's 3++ saves, but it's 1-wound models. It's not like trying to remove wraiths or brain bugs.
They cost 20pts for a SS/SB vet with special ammo that costs no CP. A GK strike has no SS, does not have special ammo unless 2 CP are paid for one squad and the ammo is worse then what DW get. the GK strikes cost 20pts, if the squads takes no upgrades. DW should cost more.
You most likely won't see a change to GK in the FAQ as the developers have already admitted the GK need a rewrite and will be receiving an updated codex at some point. This was announced during a Q&A at LVO. They might try some small fixes but I don't see the point when they are already planning a full re-write of the codex
That is stupid are FAQ holograms, so they can't change the rules, because they have to write them down ? FAQ are writen down, so what stops them from puting an extra A or extra AP or change to GK ammo in the faq. They did bigger changes in the past in FAQ. They changed the whole deep strike rule.
They could add those changes in an FAQ but if they are already working on a new codex with a complete rewrite to fix them i could see them just focusing on other faction and allowing the GK codex to bring them in line. If they thought they could fix GK with an FAQ i wouldn't see the point of them admitting that they need a new dex and that they are working on one
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
3,000pts
3,000pts
6,000pts
2,000pts
1,000pts
