Big FAQ - What do you want to see?

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.

**Burnage**

The Newman wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
alextroy wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:
How are you loosing 42 marines in one turn? You have a 2+ save in cover vs. imperial guard and theres no way his tanks should have had LOS to your entire army unless you deployed out in the open.

True LoS makes it almost impossible to completely block LoS to 8 squads of marines when there are 6 Russes spread over the other side of the table. He hit every single squad on the preliminary bombardment and then 12 battle cannon shots plus the HBs was enough to finish the job. And I couldn't roll a 4+ to save my life.

I didn't say it was a statistically likely result, just that it happened. And part of the result was that we started playing with six times as much terrain.
He hit eight squads with Preliminary Bombardment!?!?! That's a 1 in 1,679,616 chance.

It's funny how often these 1 in a million chances happen on a regular basis. It's almost like anything that can happen will happen or something.

It's funny how, when abstracted across a large number of events, just how closely to once a million times something with the odds of one in a million happen.

It's also funny how even-handed the distribution of "lucky" and "unlucky" rolls are, once you get into large numbers.

But you still don't expect a 5-man Tac squad to one-round a fully-buffed Shining Spears squad. It's certainly possible (with Grav), but you don't expect it. Similarly, it's certainly possible for 5 Guardsmen to kill 10 Marines in one round of shooting without buffs - but it's not going to happen.

The math is actually very easy.

I wouldn't expect a Preliminary Bombardment and six Battle Cannons with double-tap to wipe out 42 Marines either, and yet here we are.

Honestly, that does sound frustrating but I don't think it's reasonable to balance a game around edge cases like this. Statistically, even with your dudes standing completely out in the open, you'd expect more like... 12 to die from that.

**the_scotsman**

The Newman wrote:
Bharring wrote:
But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.

These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.

I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.

The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.

And confirmation bias is a thing.

THat doesn't stop angry threads about souped-up shokkas oneshotting imperial knights, or rage threads about how the vindicare assassin's updated rules mean he's going to be one-shotting two warbosses every turn, or any number of complaints based on crazy unlucky things That Happened one Time To Me and It Was OP.

**Ice_can**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The issue with allies is that factions are built with a weakness. A hypothetical faction might have lots of cheap troops but they have low power weapons and no melee. If you can just take melee units from an army that has amazing melee units but each one costs as much as 5 regular guys, you've just negated both of the balancing weaknesses of those armies. That's the problem in a nutshell.

You can't balance the game when half of the armies (of which there are already way too many IMHO and it's just bloated) can ignore their built-in weakness by taking a unit from a different, allied army. Why have a drawback at all when you can simply negate it? If Tau, for example, could ally in units that excelled at melee, would this be balanced when the Tau army's weakness is that they suck in melee and excel at shooting? You would just remove their weakness.

RE: Fluff, it depends. Loyal 32, 3 smash captains and a Castellan are not fluffy unless you do some serious stretching to explain it. An army like the one that won LVO, which was an actual Guard army with a Castellan, was arguably fluffy in that it actually had guard and tanks, it wasn't just the minimal possible to get +5 CP and a CP regen relic. This is a subjective thing because it has to be; something can be fluffy in one case and just min/maxing in another, similar case.

This is a poor narrative. What if an army who has a built in weakness has absolutely no tools to deal with an army that can exploit that weakness?

I don't pick armies for their innate weakness. I pick them, because I enjoy their strengths.

Again the same argument stands that picking an army shouldn't instantly require you buying 40 models and another codex, to be considered a competitive list.
At that point what you have isn't 4 or 5 armies it's just 1 army split up into multiple codex's.

Like seriously who is actually enjoying the meta that starts every competitive imperial list with well got to take the loyal 32 plus mortars. And while we're at it you should be using a Castellen as it's OP.
That's not balanced or allowing diversity.

Jesus at that point why are GW even selling any other troop choice for Imperium?
Same goes for a number of other armies, like why sell choas marines while cultists even post nerf where still the better choice?

**Daedalus81**

Galef wrote:
Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?

We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.

Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.

Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.

-

No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.

And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?

**Bharring**

the_scotsman wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Bharring wrote:
But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.

These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.

I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.

The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.

And confirmation bias is a thing.

THat doesn't stop angry threads about souped-up shokkas oneshotting imperial knights, or rage threads about how the vindicare assassin's updated rules mean he's going to be one-shotting two warbosses every turn, or any number of complaints based on crazy unlucky things That Happened one Time To Me and It Was OP.

@Newman - Totally. I left that as "implied", but forgot to actually make the implication.

@the_scotsman:
Which explains why we get so many totally-out-there viewpoints on the forums. Which is why a little math goes a long way.

Although we also see the other extreme - a little math that "proves" a viewpoint, without understanding or handling variance/distribution. How many times do we see "X is mathematically better than Y" based on a couple formulas and a couple handwaves?

**Martel732**

Comparing monodexes, ig has damn few weaknesses.

**Galef**

the_scotsman wrote:
THat doesn't stop angry threads about souped-up shokkas oneshotting imperial knights, or rage threads about how the vindicare assassin's updated rules mean he's going to be one-shotting two warbosses every turn, or any number of complaints based on crazy unlucky things That Happened one Time To Me and It Was OP.

While I certainly agree with the sentiment, GW could do a lot to reduce this kind of thing happening by making things a bit more reliable and have a lower high potential.
Quick example would be changing a Lascannon from a d6 damage weapon to a D3+2 weapon. Keeps the random feel, but you can always rely on 3-5 damage. No more rolling 1 or 2 damage, but you can never do 6 either.

-

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.

These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.

I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.

The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.

That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so. I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.

**Daedalus81**

Ice_can wrote:

Again the same argument stands that picking an army shouldn't instantly require you buying 40 models and another codex, to be considered a competitive list.
At that point what you have isn't 4 or 5 armies it's just 1 army split up into multiple codex's.

Like seriously who is actually enjoying the meta that starts every competitive imperial list with well got to take the loyal 32 plus mortars. And while we're at it you should be using a Castellen as it's OP.
That's not balanced or allowing diversity.

Jesus at that point why are GW even selling any other troop choice for Imperium?
Same goes for a number of other armies, like why sell choas marines while cultists even post nerf where still the better choice?

Again - just because there are easy choices from the IG book doesn't make soup bad. GSC saw mortars go to 7 points. We might see the same thing to happen to IG with the Big FAQ.

There is an Index for Ynarri coming shortly. Assassins still have yet to show their mark on the meta (which impacts IG the most).

What you hear on the forums or see at LVO top tables isn't the entire reality. People are increasingly doing well with varied lists. CSM are going to be employing some very dirty tricks soon as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Comparing monodexes, ig has damn few weaknesses.

This precisely. You want to kick Castellans out? Ok, well say hello to two Shadowswords, 80 Catachans, and Bullgryns.

Clamoring for monodex just makes IG stronger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:

That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so. I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.

Dice apps don't automatically make you roll average. Those 19 failed first turn rolls also relied on your opponent rolling high and on who got the +1.

**Bharring**

Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.

These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.

I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.

The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.

That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so.

If we're looking for those exact scenarios, sure, maybe it should take a million games.
But which scenarios are noteworthy? There are probably at least a million distinct scenarios in each game with odds of 1:million or worse, such that any one of them is noteworthy. The odds of at least one of those happening is much higher than one in a million.

Edit: I wanted to expand on this.

Say you roll two dice.
Snakeeyes? What are the odds? That shouldn't happen? (1/36 chance)
Boxcars? Same deal (1/36 chance)
Doubles? Not common (1/6 chance)
Exactly 7? Not common (1/6 chance)
10 or better? That's rare (1/12)
4 or worse? That's rare (1/12)

So, even only considering those cases "weird" results, none of which have a better than 1/6 chance, we're now quite close to a 50/50 chance of it happening.

Consider how many dice you roll in a game. And how often. If you aren't seeing a "one in a hundred" event at least once per game, *that's* actually noteworthy.

Lack of "That shouldn't happen" events is actually one of the ways observational data is validated. Meaning, if these things *don't* occur, the data should be questioned.

I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.

It's much harder to prove the fairness of a die app than a die.

I'll assume the app is fair, certainly. But I'd also assume the dice are fair.

**Ice_can**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

Again the same argument stands that picking an army shouldn't instantly require you buying 40 models and another codex, to be considered a competitive list.
At that point what you have isn't 4 or 5 armies it's just 1 army split up into multiple codex's.

Like seriously who is actually enjoying the meta that starts every competitive imperial list with well got to take the loyal 32 plus mortars. And while we're at it you should be using a Castellen as it's OP.
That's not balanced or allowing diversity.

Jesus at that point why are GW even selling any other troop choice for Imperium?
Same goes for a number of other armies, like why sell choas marines while cultists even post nerf where still the better choice?

Again - just because there are easy choices from the IG book doesn't make soup bad. GSC saw mortars go to 7 points. We might see the same thing to happen to IG with the Big FAQ.

There is an Index for Ynarri coming shortly. Assassins still have yet to show their mark on the meta (which impacts IG the most).

What you hear on the forums or see at LVO top tables isn't the entire reality. People are increasingly doing well with varied lists. CSM are going to be employing some very dirty tricks soon as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Comparing monodexes, ig has damn few weaknesses.

This precisely. You want to kick Castellans out? Ok, well say hello to two Shadowswords, 80 Catachans, and Bullgryns.

Clamoring for monodex just makes IG stronger.

Well their is plenty of posters on dakka and more worryingly even a number of the playtesters who haven openly stated that knight's are getting strategums recosted and the Castellen is getting a points increase.

I don't think recosting strategums on the assumption that everyone is taking a battalion for 180 points is remotely fair, but apparently that the way GW are going,

While forcing mono codex on competitive might see guard dominant for a year I'd rather that and force GW to actually rebalance points in CA 2019 than the current rules allowing them to dodge from bolt on unit to bolt on unit.

**Martel732**

Great. I wonder what the next guardsmen-fueled nightmare will be?

GW can't get around that 4 ppm is too cheap.

**the_scotsman**

Martel732 wrote:
Great. I wonder what the next guardsmen-fueled nightmare will be?

GW can't get around that 4 ppm is too cheap.

Back to blood angels, according to my competitive buddies. They're not fans of how Deathwatch fueled by guard have been doing due to them being crappy against knights and mediocre against ynnari.

**Daedalus81**

Martel732 wrote:

GW can't get around that 4 ppm is too cheap.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I'll reserve judgement until after the FAQs.

**Ice_can**

Martel732 wrote:
Great. I wonder what the next guardsmen-fueled nightmare will be?

GW can't get around that 4 ppm is too cheap.

It'll depend exactlly on how much over nerfing Knights get, if it's mild enough, probably just a Crusader Knight instead of the Castellen.

If it's nuclear, dawn eagles or BA.

**tneva82**

Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
But it cuts both ways; I've seen a small Sternguard squad ace a full-HP Asurman through a 2+ rerollable in 6th *on overwatch*.

These things happen. But they happen roughly just as frequently in your favor as in your opponent's.

I've had a game in 8th where a WaveSerpent did 15 damage to a LR in the shooting phase, then had a Farseer finish it off with a pistol.

The next game after that, I fired every single long-range weapon in my army at a Dread and did 4 HP total - in a 2k points game.

That should have taken you a million games but it only took you 200 or so. I've lost the roll to go first 19 times in a row before too. You know the odds of that? The only answer is dice are pretty terrible at creating random distribution. We should all use dice apps.

And guy wins lottery twice with only short time in between. Point being? Variance doesn't work like "i got unlucky/lucky, no way it happens again soon".

**beir**

At this point, I just want to see the damn FAQ. I don't really care what is in it. Why do they need 2 weeks after Adepticon to release it?

**Phaeron Gukk**

Because even though their dev. cycles are usually so far behind they're still fighting the War in Heaven, apparently they can speed them up for a few days to account for Adepticon, just about fast enough to delay the FAQ.

**Daedalus81**

beir wrote:
At this point, I just want to see the damn FAQ. I don't really care what is in it. Why do they need 2 weeks after Adepticon to release it?

Collaborate, update, and translate. It is also not as it there is a singularly focused FAQ team - they still have to do their other job.

**beir**

Daedalus81 wrote:
beir wrote:
At this point, I just want to see the damn FAQ. I don't really care what is in it. Why do they need 2 weeks after Adepticon to release it?

Collaborate, update, and translate. It is also not as it there is a singularly focused FAQ team - they still have to do their other job.

'
Two. Weeks.

I wrote 250 pages of software requirements in 2 weeks for a project once. And I had other job duties to attend to as well.

Stop apologizing for GW. They don't need your white knighting.

**Daedalus81**

beir wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
beir wrote:
At this point, I just want to see the damn FAQ. I don't really care what is in it. Why do they need 2 weeks after Adepticon to release it?

Collaborate, update, and translate. It is also not as it there is a singularly focused FAQ team - they still have to do their other job.

'
Two. Weeks.

I wrote 250 pages of software requirements in 2 weeks for a project once. And I had other job duties to attend to as well.

Stop apologizing for GW. They don't need your white knighting.

Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.

**Burnage**

The link on GW's website to the BRB FAQ has been broken for a few days now, so I can't imagine we're that far away from the new update.

**Karol**

Daedalus81 wrote:

Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.

Well technically they had time to write the FAQ since the last CA. That is a lot of time to gather data and think about changes. Even if it is done by one man for 10 min every day, then it is still whole days of work time since CA went to print. Unless of course they did nothing and started writing it post adepticon, then in deed they could have delays.

**Daedalus81**

Karol wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

Good for you? Stop acting like you have full insight to the process and chill out.

Well technically they had time to write the FAQ since the last CA. That is a lot of time to gather data and think about changes. Even if it is done by one man for 10 min every day, then it is still whole days of work time since CA went to print. Unless of course they did nothing and started writing it post adepticon, then in deed they could have delays.

That's because it's an ongoing process that requires people to play games, deliberate, and provide feedback on top of testing new codexes like GSC, CSM, and Sisters. Not to mention Index Assassins and Ynnari.

**Phaeron Gukk**

It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.

**Daedalus81**

Phaeron Gukk wrote:
It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.

Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.

**the_scotsman**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Phaeron Gukk wrote:
It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.

Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.

The issue is in souphammer that those are essentially the same faction. It's kind of like saying "Drukhari mech spam isn't a problem at all, Ynnari Skyweavers totally wreck them!"

That's the same list. It's just going to slot in a summoned assassin, marginally increasing its power.

**Xenomancers**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Galef wrote:
Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?

We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.

Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.

Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.

-

No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.

And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?

With stratagems this game more emulates a game of magic than a board game. Side boards actually should be a thing.

**Daedalus81**

the_scotsman wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Phaeron Gukk wrote:
It's almost as if an electronic database of FAQs doesn't need two grand-fanfare releases a year, and instead should be updated little-by-little on a frequent basis as soon as individual fixes become ready.

Fixes are in context of other fixes. You might think IS should be 5 points, but then assassins come out and wreck the gak out of their CCs. Or not. Only time will tell.

The issue is in souphammer that those are essentially the same faction. It's kind of like saying "Drukhari mech spam isn't a problem at all, Ynnari Skyweavers totally wreck them!"

That's the same list. It's just going to slot in a summoned assassin, marginally increasing its power.

Well, I'm not worried about IG growing stronger from the presence of assassins, but weaker.

It is not terribly hard to kill a CC. The CC makes two units of IS twice as good. Killing a CC is similar to removing 20 models worth of offensive output - a priest, even more.

Vindicaries (and GSC) are potentially IG's own worst enemy (and now maybe marines).

So, if they take to the meta, what happens?

+85 for their own assassin
+62 for an ogryn BG that can't likely cover all
+whatever for mortars

Suddenly we're removing a couple of basilisks or whatever equivalent for what amounts to a lesser degree of offensive power. Kick the Castellan in the face a little and where do we land?

**Bharring**

Xenomancers wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Galef wrote:
Except it isn't a poor narrative, it's how a balanced system with multiple factions should be.
If Faction A is all strengths with no weakness, why bother playing Factions B or C?

We are not saying that the weakness needs to be glaring and debilitating, but it needs to be there for a good opponent to leverage their unique strengths against.
Guard, for example should be Quantity of shooting over quality and fold in melee most of the time
T'au should be Quality of shooting and even worse at melee
Marines are Jack of all trades, masters on none (which is apparently more weakness than strength)
And Orks are Quantity of bodies, good in melee and rely on weight of dice for shooting rather than quality.

Those are just a few examples (that might not even be accurate anymore). If Guard can take an Allie with decent Melee, or shooting to make melee all but impossible to achieve, then their weakness disappears.
While there isn't anything too terrible about this, armies like T'au, Necrons and Orks do not have the option AT ALL. Disagreeing that this is a problem, even a small one, is part of the problem.

Armies that can take allies should be able to do so, but armies that cannot should be compensated equally (or sliiiiightly penalize the use of allies by doing something like limit how many CP they generate by half).
Personally, though I'd rather not penalize anyone, but rather reward Monofaction lists more. Double CPs for their detachments is ALL detachments share 2+ Factions keywords with the WL.

-

No. There are no sideboards. There is no "leveraging of weakness" against your opponent unless you simply happened to bring the correct list. Your suggestion just exacerbates bad matchups.

And despite the insistence that no weaknesses exist people deploy lists that mute strong parts of the meta to great effect. What does a Castellan shoot when the opponent has no vehicles?

With stratagems this game more emulates a game of magic than a board game. Side boards actually should be a thing.

Just because it's moved in the wrong direction doesn't mean it should move *further* in the wrong direction.

That said, Assassins are now sideboards. Summoning is, too, but it was too costly to "matter".