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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

"Nah, GW gave them those points for a reason."
"Your faction shouldn't be good at [whatever unit does]"
"They are actually quite powerful if you use them right."
"Sure, I'll add another unit of [something not terrible] to compensate."

Seen all that happening. On top of that, there are a non-trivial amount of people who claim that certain units are quite weak despite that not being the case. During my last game, there was a guy playing on another table claiming to play a "fun fluffy CSM list" ripping his opponent apart with Alpha Legion chaingun havocs, obliterators and noise marines.

Unless you find a person that like playing exactly the same way you to, this is anything but easy.

Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

at the end of the day legends exists to allow us to use our old stuff that they no longer really support, it's like backwards compatability on a console

 vict0988 wrote:
Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

40k ain't rocket science. The player in question is virtually quaranteed to have known his list is strong.

Oh and btw GW has no professional game designer so don't excuse them on that part. GW has bunch of amateurs creating deliberate imbalance to help sales.

 vict0988 wrote:
Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

It was with then new PA rules, but before CA. And I'm fairly sure he knew what he was doing.

Jidmah wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

"Nah, GW gave them those points for a reason."
"Your faction shouldn't be good at [whatever unit does]"
"They are actually quite powerful if you use them right."
"Sure, I'll add another unit of [something not terrible] to compensate."

Seen all that happening. On top of that, there are a non-trivial amount of people who claim that certain units are quite weak despite that not being the case. During my last game, there was a guy playing on another table claiming to play a "fun fluffy CSM list" ripping his opponent apart with Alpha Legion chaingun havocs, obliterators and noise marines.

Unless you find a person that like playing exactly the same way you to, this is anything but easy.

well that player just sounds like a complete dick.

BrianDavion wrote:at the end of the day legends exists to allow us to use our old stuff that they no longer really support, it's like backwards compatability on a console

this is all I was expecting and all I wanted. my biker capt, lt & chaplain are awaiting deployment(when I'm finished painting them). now if my RT chaplain w power sabre had (current legends) rules for that loadout I would be very happy.

Tneva28 - "Oh and btw GW has no professional game designer so don't excuse them on that part. GW has bunch of amateurs creating deliberate imbalance to help sales".

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

It was with then new PA rules, but before CA. And I'm fairly sure he knew what he was doing.

I once had a guy get mad at me for bringing lots of Heavy Destroyers, all he knew was that Destroyers were one of the best Necron units and I was bringing a unit of Destroyers and 3 units of Heavy Destroyers, he thought I was a tool for bringing so many Destroyers to a casual game, not knowing that Heavy Destroyers were 17 pts overcosted. The list you described is getting a lot cheaper, in a really charitable light you could see him simply being mistaken although I do believe all the units you mentioned were at least pretty good before CA and I'd have said something after the game. Maybe he has a really terrible win record with the list, I've played against people that couldn't make otherwise perfectly competitive lists work and I had a fair chance even bringing a less pts-efficient list.

tneva82 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

40k ain't rocket science. The player in question is virtually quaranteed to have known his list is strong.

Oh and btw GW has no professional game designer so don't excuse them on that part. GW has bunch of amateurs creating deliberate imbalance to help sales.

Eh, it's close. If people were doing rocket science in their basements you also wouldn't just observe the odd unbalanced game because someone is unkowledgable or a git, if people switched from 40k to rocketry I think a lot of basements would catch on fire. The game should balance itself or rather be balanced by the dev team.

The definition of pro is not perfect, it's employed, if you are employed to shovel poop you are a pro poop shoveler. 40k is a game by any sane definition of the word, it is designed by the game designers. The game designers are paid, they are pro game designers. I don't think they are getting enough time to do their job currently, not that more time would actually make the game perfect or even better than it is, but even if you had a better vision and tactic for development and balance I don't think the current team has the time for making the game much better. I don't know how big their team is, but their testing team plays a fourth the games I'd want them to play and setting up strategies for balancing and doing calculations takes time, it's easier to just winging it.

 vict0988 wrote:

Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

philosophy of (political) life right here.

 Eipi10 wrote:
Those filled important roles in 40k, especially rough riders who were the ig flanking unit and the only viable alternative to sentinels (which kinda suck and are expensive).

Lol, what? Rough Riders have literally never been viable in non-casual lists since their inception.

I thought Legends was supposed to have rules for all the models they no longer make?

Where are my IG speeder and jetbike rules?

8th Edition Index Units that no longer have models, not everything ever produced.

Interesting.
Pretty sure Biker Characters are what they’ve always been - good bike sales - and Biker units still exist.
I doubt we’ll see Biker Characters that haven’t gotten primaris upgrade so when do we see Primaris Bike Characters?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

"Nah, GW gave them those points for a reason."
"Your faction shouldn't be good at [whatever unit does]"
"They are actually quite powerful if you use them right."
"Sure, I'll add another unit of [something not terrible] to compensate."

Seen all that happening. On top of that, there are a non-trivial amount of people who claim that certain units are quite weak despite that not being the case. During my last game, there was a guy playing on another table claiming to play a "fun fluffy CSM list" ripping his opponent apart with Alpha Legion chaingun havocs, obliterators and noise marines.

Unless you find a person that like playing exactly the same way you to, this is anything but easy.

Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

Problem is that several armies suddenly became 200 points cheaper - net result is nothing actually changed.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Interesting.
Pretty sure Biker Characters are what they’ve always been - good bike sales - and Biker units still exist.
I doubt we’ll see Biker Characters that haven’t gotten primaris upgrade so when do we see Primaris Bike Characters?

Dude, didn't you know, Bike characters are pay to win, truth, ya hear me Dawg ?

No, simple player can just pick up bike kits, and somehow use plastic bits from the lines to just make a librarian and chaplain, or veterans or command squad guys on bikes !?!?!

Don't talk crazy, ain't no one got time or money for that, pay to win, broken, stuff. Thank god for Legends, finally we are safe.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

"Nah, GW gave them those points for a reason."
"Your faction shouldn't be good at [whatever unit does]"
"They are actually quite powerful if you use them right."
"Sure, I'll add another unit of [something not terrible] to compensate."

Seen all that happening. On top of that, there are a non-trivial amount of people who claim that certain units are quite weak despite that not being the case. During my last game, there was a guy playing on another table claiming to play a "fun fluffy CSM list" ripping his opponent apart with Alpha Legion chaingun havocs, obliterators and noise marines.

Unless you find a person that like playing exactly the same way you to, this is anything but easy.

Politely saying that chaingun havocs, oblits and noise marines are quite strong helps move the needle. I try to ask my opponents after casual games if they found my list to be too mean, it's legit hard, professional GW game designers can't get it right you cannot expect casual wargamers to get it right. Even competitive gamers get things wrong all the time and new tech and options are developed and perfected so they suddenly seem better than before. Out of curiosity, was this with the new pts? If it's with the old pts I can understand him thinking "well my army is getting 200 pts cheaper so it's probably pretty weak".

Problem is that several armies suddenly became 200 points cheaper - net result is nothing actually changed.

This is one of the silliest things you can say and I don't know why so many 40k podcasters have said it, are you repeating it or is the impression you got on your own? If every unit in every faction became the same proportion cheaper nothing is actually changing, but a dozen unit in half the factions in the game are changed and the other half aren't changed then the net result is a huge amount of change. Especially many of the less effective strategies in 40k are becoming better, Necrons have more effective melee and Supreme Command Detachments aren't complete jokes for Necrons, this means more variety on game tables which does change things. I played a melee C'tan centric list against IH a couple of weeks ago, IH aren't getting much if anything, my list is getting 200 pts, that changes things. CSM are getting not only better at performing their bad strategies, some of their mediocre strategies are probably going to be very effective. Tyranids aren't getting half as good changes as Necrons or CSM IMO are, so I'll probably have to be careful when playing casually against them because I'm starting to run out of competitive lists because Necrons are slowly getting more internally balanced while Tyranids hardly got touched.

I think even if we are to be charitable and say that the guy bringing a fairly strong list and vastly underplaying its strengths and saying that was an impression he had based on coming pts reductions, CA19 isn't going to balance the game and the army the guy brought is going to be pretty amazing after CA19, while many other armies are either remaining bad or just becoming meh tier.

Agree with vict on this. My impression is that already powerful armies got little to no point reductions, while most of the armies losing 200+ points were those which were mediocre at best before.

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree with vict on this. My impression is that already powerful armies got little to no point reductions, while most of the armies losing 200+ points were those which were mediocre at best before.

Well top dog didn't get as they got codex right before so CA was in print already.

One issue with say necrons is that while internal balance got fixed a bit so you shoot less to your foot if you take the poor choices the good choices didn't change all that much and the poor choices didn't surpass good ones. So externally necrons are still in same boat(and if anything above them got point drops falling behind). About only thing that might really alter competive necrons was heavy destroyers which MIGHT replace airwing. Praetorians, lychguard etc that dropped won't still be seen in competive lists.

And even internal balance changes were lacking. Why warriors stayed same? As it is they just got internally replaced by ghost arks...