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.

Karol wrote:
And in my country, where ITC is not played, my army placed in top 8 in 5th edition the last time. Plus it is for tournaments. Very few new people start with an exact tournament list, mostly because just like me, they fall for the whole, play what you want thing.


Also harlequins has 3 top 8s last year in ITC? not saying I don't believe you, but where does harleguin lists or pre nerf Inari lists with MW spaming jetbikes in them?

https://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

There's a complete list at the link above.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Karol wrote:
And in my country, where ITC is not played, my army placed in top 8 in 5th edition the last time. Plus it is for tournaments. Very few new people start with an exact tournament list, mostly because just like me, they fall for the whole, play what you want thing.


Also harlequins has 3 top 8s last year in ITC? not saying I don't believe you, but where does harleguin lists or pre nerf Inari lists with MW spaming jetbikes in them?

https://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

There's a complete list at the link above.

I see two Harlequin lists at that link for 2019, a 3rd place and a 1st place. Can't view them, for some reason, clicking on them just gives me the home page. I am guessing like you Karol, the list has a max-sized unit of old Ynnari Harlequin skyweaver jetbikes, some min sized clown squads with fusion pistols in starweavers, and a couple shadowseers or troupe masters.

IF it's even mostly harlequins, and it's not classified as a harlequin list because the largest single detachment was harlequins, and it's mostly allies by points. I don't know, I can't see the list.

Why , when somebody points out that all units should at least have an use in some kind of list, the usual suspects come with the "OMG DO YOU WANT A RANDOM LIST WITH RANDOM UNITS TO HAVE A 50% CHANCE OF WINNING AGAISNT ANY OTHER KIND OF LIST?!"


No. Nobody is saying that. People just wants for units to have an use, even if its in some kind of niche-anti meta list.

If GW sells me a support character for Tyranid Warriors in the form of the Tyranid Warrior Prime, I expect to be able to use that sinergy to make something usable. And is perfectly fine for a Tyranid Warrior Prime to be absolute crap in a list without Tyranid Warriors, just like a Techmarine in a list with 0 vehicles should be useless.
The problem is when you have a list full of vehicles and a Techmarine is still useless.

 Galas wrote:
Why , when somebody points out that all units should at least have an use in some kind of list, the usual suspects come with the "OMG DO YOU WANT A RANDOM LIST WITH RANDOM UNITS TO HAVE A 50% CHANCE OF WINNING AGAISNT ANY OTHER KIND OF LIST?!"


No. Nobody is saying that. People just wants for units to have an use, even if its in some kind of niche-anti meta list.

If GW sells me a support character for Tyranid Warriors in the form of the Tyranid Warrior Prime, I expect to be able to use that sinergy to make something usable. And is perfectly fine for a Tyranid Warrior Prime to be absolute crap in a list without Tyranid Warriors, just like a Techmarine in a list with 0 vehicles should be useless.
The problem is when you have a list full of vehicles and a Techmarine is still useless.

^This. having a unit be objectively worse than other options only makes sense to me when it's some WD-released goofy narrative play unit that you don't want people to be able to powergame and use in tournaments.

Like if GW went "hey you know what, we don't actually sell chaplain dreads anymore. PBBBBBBHHHHHT" and took a big old nerf dump on them to make people stop playing this wonky ass character dreadnought thing in every tournament list, I'd honestly be fine with that. Or when the weirdo psyker thing from RnH was broken to the point of absurdity. Some weird obscure hidden FW thing with no official model, fine, nerf that to basically just be for narrative games, idc.

But everything else should strive to at least have some use. All current models you can actually go buy from a store or online.

 Ishagu wrote:
So you think the art of list building shouldn't exist? Every unit should be balanced against every other at all times? That's pretty stupid lol

It's not really stupid. Just because choices are balanced doesn't mean they're identical.

Ork Big Mek with KFF says ‘hi’.

I don't really see why balance is such a problem.

Balance is about what you get for your points. So putting the points up or putting the points down will bring something more or less into line.

I mean to bring up an infamous moment on the forum - the humble Squigbuggy. In my view (and I think any competitive ork list view) its crap at 100 points. Its not a meaningful shooting threat, its not a meaningful combat threat, and its relatively easy to kill.
But all of this is in the context of being 100 points.
If it was say 60 points suddenly its a lot better. Whether its competitive or not I can't say (probably not in ITC, due to things like "kill more" being very anti small units like buggies) but it would be "more balanced".

At the same time if GW were to put its points back up to 140, it would be even worse than it is now.

 Ishagu wrote:
So you think the art of list building shouldn't exist? Every unit should be balanced against every other at all times? That's pretty stupid lol

The 'art of listbuilding' should be about building a list where the units synergize together to function effectively, cover each other's weaknesses, and maximize their strengths. Not about picking the objectively best units and avoiding the objectively weakest ones, which isn't much of an art at all.

Canadian 5th, and now you, keep repeating the false equivalence that having all units be on roughly equal ground to start with means 'every unit should be balanced against every other at all times', and listbuilding suddenly doesn't matter. And that is utter bs. We can make a game where Basilisks are worth their points in a normal army, but will probably lose every game if you take absolutely nothing but Basilisks.

Canadian 5th then continues to repeat the false equivalence that not having trap choices means expecting perfect balance. That's also bs. We know expecting perfect balance is unreasonable, but that doesn't mean GW should embrace imbalance and use it as a gotcha, to reward players who mistake being able to read DakkaDakka for game skill. The whole reason for points values is to adequately reflect the value of a unit.

Starcraft didn't become an e-sport by having deliberate imbalance, so as to reward the players who figure out which units to avoid and which to build. Quite the opposite, it was successful because it was incredibly well-balanced despite three very different factions, leading to an interesting meta with many different ways to play. Counter-Strike didn't become an e-sport by having some weapons be garbage, to reward players who figure out which weapons to take and which to avoid. League of Legends, contrary to Canadian 5th's implication, does not have deliberate imbalance- characters are subject to meta-changing balance passes all the time. In videogames, it is taken as a given that balance is desirable and leads to a better and more interesting game. The success of games built on tight balance bears this out.

It's seemingly only with gambling (see: CCGs) that imbalance is a design goal. And that has no place in wargaming, where players invest non-negligible time and money into their armies. The idea of GW hyping up unit choices for sale while simultaneously ensuring that they are underpowered and will lose unless your opponent takes pity on you isn't just bad design, it's downright exploitative.

Exactly. It is easy to imagine a kid getting started in the hobby with Necrons for example, because killer space robots are bad ass and the paint scheme is forgiving for a new player.

Then they find out that they made the mistake of picking a third tier army that is not really supported by GW, with poor rules and limited viability in the game as it is widely played. Every game they play will now have to involve some sort of pleading from a weak position for their opponent to aquiesce to weakening their forces to give them a good game. This feels bad, it feels like being second class.

This kid is gonna feel like they wasted a large amount of money and time. They are not gonna feel good about this hobby.

The solution is for the game designers to put in the mimimum amount of work required of professionals working on a premium priced product to ensure that it works for their customers. Even if it is just for the sake of a kid like that.

That they don't get this, or don't care, means they are unprofessional or fools.
It is easy for someone who has been playing for years across many editions to navigate this environment. But it is unpleasant for new players and especially young players without a lot of income, the very casual players that people arguing for poor balance (an insane argument to my mind) claim to be arguing on the side of.

I would love to hear from a GW designer what they think that hypothetical kid should do with the rules as provided.

 Da Boss wrote:
Exactly. It is easy to imagine a kid getting started in the hobby with Necrons for example, because killer space robots are bad ass and the paint scheme is forgiving for a new player.

Then they find out that they made the mistake of picking a third tier army that is not really supported by GW, with poor rules and limited viability in the game as it is widely played. Every game they play will now have to involve some sort of pleading from a weak position for their opponent to aquiesce to weakening their forces to give them a good game. This feels bad, it feels like being second class.

This kid is gonna feel like they wasted a large amount of money and time. They are not gonna feel good about this hobby.

The solution is for the game designers to put in the mimimum amount of work required of professionals working on a premium priced product to ensure that it works for their customers. Even if it is just for the sake of a kid like that.

That they don't get this, or don't care, means they are unprofessional or fools.
It is easy for someone who has been playing for years across many editions to navigate this environment. But it is unpleasant for new players and especially young players without a lot of income, the very casual players that people arguing for poor balance (an insane argument to my mind) claim to be arguing on the side of.

I would love to hear from a GW designer what they think that hypothetical kid should do with the rules as provided.

I have seen this situation in real life many times. Person starts an army, turns out that army is incredibly low tier, person disappears from play group after collecting like 1k points.

Happens all the time.Probably the #2 reason people quit soon after joining, #1 being making a big, gigantic, stupid financial investment in an army and burning right the feth out because you just cannot play the game at 2k points right off the bat and can't paint 2k points of stuff.

 Da Boss wrote:
Exactly. It is easy to imagine a kid getting started in the hobby with Necrons for example, because killer space robots are bad ass and the paint scheme is forgiving for a new player.

Then they find out that they made the mistake of picking a third tier army that is not really supported by GW, with poor rules and limited viability in the game as it is widely played. Every game they play will now have to involve some sort of pleading from a weak position for their opponent to aquiesce to weakening their forces to give them a good game. This feels bad, it feels like being second class.

This kid is gonna feel like they wasted a large amount of money and time. They are not gonna feel good about this hobby.

The solution is for the game designers to put in the mimimum amount of work required of professionals working on a premium priced product to ensure that it works for their customers. Even if it is just for the sake of a kid like that.

That they don't get this, or don't care, means they are unprofessional or fools.
It is easy for someone who has been playing for years across many editions to navigate this environment. But it is unpleasant for new players and especially young players without a lot of income, the very casual players that people arguing for poor balance (an insane argument to my mind) claim to be arguing on the side of.

I would love to hear from a GW designer what they think that hypothetical kid should do with the rules as provided.

I agree with the premise, but I think we too often impose our hindsight and conditions upon kids.

I didn't care much when I was young about losing. I figured I needed a variety of tools to deal with my opponent. My opponent was like-wise pretty novice and wouldn't be trying to deny RPP or anything like that. And we'd often play whacky missions.

GW can improve. Kids will be fine.

My son has started playing in the last 6 months, and he's collecting Necrons. Before he'd even looked at the available factions, he said 'it'd be really cool if there was a race of, like, skeleton robots or something' - so Necrons are ideal for him.

He's playing in an after-school club once a week, and because they only have about an hour to play, plus they are kids with limited budget etc, most people only have a small army. Starter box or so.

And he's doing OK. Wins some, loses some. Enjoys himself though. And that's the main thing.

His models are looking awesome too...

Crispy78 wrote:
My son has started playing in the last 6 months, and he's collecting Necrons. Before he'd even looked at the available factions, he said 'it'd be really cool if there was a race of, like, skeleton robots or something' - so Necrons are ideal for him.

He's playing in an after-school club once a week, and because they only have about an hour to play, plus they are kids with limited budget etc, most people only have a small army. Starter box or so.

And he's doing OK. Wins some, loses some. Enjoys himself though. And that's the main thing.

His models are looking awesome too...

I've been hearing that their Psychic Awakening is going to be pretty spicy too, so he's got something to look forward to in the future.

GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.

The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.

"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.

There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.

GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.

Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.

Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.

Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience

I actually agree with your points for the most part, Ishagu. I love 40k, I play it weekly in tournaments, etc... and the game is in a better state than before, specially with the regular updates.

But that doesn't mean you aren't strawmaning. Nobody is saying every unit needs to be average with every other unit. But I assume at this point, this is the internet and nobody is gonna convince anybody else. So whatever.

I think they've been making genuine attempts at balance, but the missteps recently have been due to structural changes they've made, or inexperienced new members on the team. Games Workshop know that if their game is believed to be a hot mess (regardless of whether it is or not), people might be put off of investing into the hobby. They've been making serious attempts to make adjustments. The delay for the recent FAQ is likely not just a result of their data gathering (really, you could be very confident like 2 months ago), but rather that they were told they had a certain time that they were allowed to publish it, for whatever reasons. They still have a long way to go though, and not specifically in balance. Many factions still feel bland, and the release schedule is anything but well spread these days.

One of the issues I think is the game has been simplified a lot to get around some of the pure incompetent game design of the passed.
6th and 7th being really bad so it is better, but still laughable and bloated to give differences where at times you could do a lot more with less.
Maybe by next edition they will work out where the game really should be going.
I do not even think it’s just a rules issue ether, in some cases there is just lack of models in the design to do the jobs that are needed in some factions.
Some of the imperium has models they could use, but don’t get access to them. Often I think from some ever changing design plan for them.

Glad that all got sorted out.

Bad choices on purpose = :thumbsdown:

Niche choices for player discretion=

Crispy78 wrote:
My son has started playing in the last 6 months, and he's collecting Necrons. Before he'd even looked at the available factions, he said 'it'd be really cool if there was a race of, like, skeleton robots or something' - so Necrons are ideal for him.

He's playing in an after-school club once a week, and because they only have about an hour to play, plus they are kids with limited budget etc, most people only have a small army. Starter box or so.

And he's doing OK. Wins some, loses some. Enjoys himself though. And that's the main thing.

His models are looking awesome too...

Aww, that's awesome.

 Ishagu wrote:
GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.

The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.

"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.

There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.

GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.

Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.

Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.

Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience

This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?

Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.

Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.

Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.

The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.

"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.

There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.

GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.

Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.

Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.

Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience

This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?

Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.

Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.

Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.

So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.

The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.

"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.

There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.

GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.

Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.

Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.

Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience

This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?

Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.

Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.

Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.

So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!

Nope, my DW are permanently shelved outside of Kill Team until SM as a whole are nerfed. I find them to be overpoweringly strong just with their current rules+shock assault+bolter discipline (which doesn't even work with SIA anymore lol).

I've mostly been playing GSC and Orks lately.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.

The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.

"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.

There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.

GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.

Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.

Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.

Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience

This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?

Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.

Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.

Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.

So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!

Nope, my DW are permanently shelved outside of Kill Team until SM as a whole are nerfed. I find them to be overpoweringly strong just with their current rules+shock assault+bolter discipline (which doesn't even work with SIA anymore lol).

I've mostly been playing GSC and Orks lately.

Humm - space marines on the whole were just massively nerfed. The only army that really didn't see serious nerfs was ultramarines because they were one of the few armies that specializes in the tactical doctrine which has been made the most reliable doctrine to be in. RG are also tactical but effects way less units and without WL trait bomb cents they are massively down in power. Essentially DW is pretty close in power level to ultramarines at this point. SIA is probably better than tactical doctrine on intercessors. AP -4 on lascannons is only for 1 round. I wouldn't say DW power was ever at all considered over powered.

AP-4 Lascannons is far, FAR less important than AP-1 Bolters.

The first point of AP matters more than the last.

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW balance is arguably exactly where it should be.

The game is playable, the community growing. New factions and rules create buzz - and the buzz about rules would not be as great if everything was average compared to everything else.

"Hey dude, did you see the latest XYZ rules!? They are completely average compared to my existing army!"
Wow it's so exciting. Not.

There's a small minority who have a complaint fetish, God knows why they spend so much time talking about something that according to them is rubbish.

GW's main focus is not the rules. The balance is merely ONE of the things they focus on. Models, lore and hobby supplies come first. I think people need to understand that their personal priorities might not always be shared by the creators.

Also, GW are actively patching the game. Many of you might be too young to remember that in the old days a faction might not get updated for 7 years. If you got stuck with crappy rules you were stuck for a long, long, long time.

Let's all calm down. A game as complex as 40k, with as many variables is impossible to balance perfectly. Frequently updated rules like what we have now is perfectly reasonable.

Also, there's no reason to complain right now. Astartes rules, have been updated and we don't yet know the impact of the changes. Patience

This is kind of a silly opinion. Rules have to be OP to create excitement?

Boy, it sure would be silly if an extremely well-balanced codex with a hugely anticipated army relaunch in plastic were to have happened like a month ago pretty much entirely proving you wrong there.

Everything in the new sisters codex is playable, everything has its niche, all the subfactions have a reason to take them. Every existing sisters player I know is thrilled with it and at least four people where I play are starting brand new sisters armies from scratch.

Compare that to the SM horsegak, which tanked our player numbers by a solid 25% for like a month, and everyone left was basically just playing space marines or actively avoiding playing against space marines.

So I don't think GW cares so much about play #'s at this point. They really only care how many SM supplement books they sold and how many boxes of cents/ Intercessors they were able to generate interests in. Probably a gak ton! They know you'll be right back to playing the game because you addicted to plastic crack just like the rest of us. As soon as that deathwatch supplement comes out - you will be on that gravy train!

Nope, my DW are permanently shelved outside of Kill Team until SM as a whole are nerfed. I find them to be overpoweringly strong just with their current rules+shock assault+bolter discipline (which doesn't even work with SIA anymore lol).

I've mostly been playing GSC and Orks lately.

Humm - space marines on the whole were just massively nerfed. The only army that really didn't see serious nerfs was ultramarines because they were one of the few armies that specializes in the tactical doctrine which has been made the most reliable doctrine to be in. RG are also tactical but effects way less units and without WL trait bomb cents they are massively down in power. Essentially DW is pretty close in power level to ultramarines at this point. SIA is probably better than tactical doctrine on intercessors. AP -4 on lascannons is only for 1 round. I wouldn't say DW power was ever at all considered over powered.

As I've said before in this thread, what's considered overpowered by the competitive crowd and what creates bad, uninteractive games in my local meta are often two entirely different things. I'm sure I'd go 0-everything with my deathwatch at some super competitive tournament. I only have terminators with powerfists, I run Terminator armor on all my HQs because it's what I've got, heck I have vets armed wtih heavy thunder hammers in a melee kill team, but every time I run them I feel like I'm just getting handed wins. It's the combination of 2+ armor saves and at least 2-3 storm shields in every unit, they just seem to take next to no casualties while they hose stuff off the table. I have never lost a 40k game with them, and the collection started from 1 of each DW vet and vanvet configuration you can take in Kill Team+a Space Hulk set of terminators. I didn't plan my purchases strategically for 40k at all. I look at them and feel like they should be the softest fluffiest goofball army possible, it's just a jumble of randomly armed power armor roughly sorted into "long range weapons one squad, short range weapons one squad, melee weapons one squad" with an old dreadnought repainted from my space wolves and the characters from space hulk+chaplain from deathwatch overkill.

So, they're shelved for now. I'd run them if someone wanted to do an ITC mission or something because that usually means they're more competitive, but most people are specifically requesting games against not space marines right now.

All of these were middling AP and benefited greatly from always on Dev.

TFC, SBRs, Storm Cannons, AssCans, WW, HOGC, Eliminators, Suppressors, Invictors.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
AP-4 Lascannons is far, FAR less important than AP-1 Bolters.

The first point of AP matters more than the last.

All of these were middling AP and benefited greatly from always on Dev.

TFC, SBRs, Storm Cannons, AssCans, WW, HOGC, Eliminators, Suppressors, Invictors.

True-but the general point (going from AP0 to AP-1 matters more than AP-3 to AP-4) remains.

Going from a 5+ to a 6+ is a 25% increase in damage. 6+ to no save is a 20% increase.
Going from a 2+ to a 3+ is a 100% increase in damage. 3+ to 4+ is a 50% increase.

Yeah but going to a 6+ to a 7+ is a huge breakpoint. Removal of all saves = automatic damage ( the best kind of damage).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah but going to a 6+ to a 7+ is a huge breakpoint. Removal of all saves = automatic damage ( the best kind of damage).

Do the math, please. Not to mention, a LOT of things have invulnerable saves, meaning extra AP isn't just less useful than the first point, it's actually completely irrelevant.

I think the "art of list-building" shouldn't be "I can spot the gakky, useless choices and the nearly game-breakingly good choices (or I'll hop onto Dakka and/or Reddit and let someone else do it for me) and I shall build a list that only, or primarily includes the latter". It should be about finding which units synergize well with each other and your playstyle, and which will excel at the tasks you want them to do.

Before the internet was a thing, I'm sure spotting the "bad" and "good" units was quite a skillful endeavor. These days, within hours of a datasheet dropping, you already have access to a nearly perfect rundown of its viability. Maybe you don't use this tool, and good on ya for it (I guess), but the fact remains that many people DO use it and this type of "list-building art" just isn't skillful anymore.

Instead, give me a Codex where every unit is, at the least, viable and I can be skillful in how I build my list to utilize them in a way that suits how I play.

Tldr; it takes more skill to create a list tailored to you than it does to grab a net list and copy what the top tournament players are doing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah but going to a 6+ to a 7+ is a huge breakpoint. Removal of all saves = automatic damage ( the best kind of damage).

Do the math, please. Not to mention, a LOT of things have invulnerable saves, meaning extra AP isn't just less useful than the first point, it's actually completely irrelevant.

That is true. It is nice to get no saves though. Math is kind of irrelevant compared to doing automatic damage. Making 2 out of 3 6+ saves is enough to win you the game sometimes. Take that away entirely and there is no hope at that point. Less and less things have invulnerable saves with imperial things. I was surprised how often the -4 on a lascannon or a -5 on an executioner made a huge difference.