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.
In response to the bolded bit, bottom 11 win rates for 2020 season contains:
Salamanders
Space wolves
Black templars
Ultramarines
Dark angels
The only 2 real armies lower than dark angels were death guard and ynnari.
2019 season if we again ignore obvious "best in faction" attempts like the pure fortifications or pure titan lists, bottom 10 has:
Deathwatch
Space wolves
Blood angels
Grey knights
Dark angels
Dark angels were the lowest win rate for a codex printed army.
Marines often frequent the bottom of the tables, but it's not what gets attention.
Tournaments results are not the whole truth though. Tournament lists are based on a style of playing that is NOT the majority of 40k gaming, not to mention the house rules (including time limitations) that completely alter the game experience.
In any casual to semi-competitive game SM are and always have been extremely solid because they don't need skew lists to work. Heck my SW without doctrines were way easier to play than orks in 8th edition, definitely stronger, and yet codex orks was considered solid mid tier and codex SW bottom tier because of some tournament results and a few skew lists. I remember during index times a good number of orks high results in tournaments, and yet index orks were indeed the weakest orks I've ever seen since 3rd edition. But one single built in the specific setting of tournaments was so anti meta to achieve some good results.
Not long ago we had SW among the most effective SM chapters due to some tournament results that were affected by a mistake in a FAQ that was immediately fixed.
Never consider tournament results alone to discuss the state of a faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: which is stupid, jumping ship to get the best rules is fething moronic.
For standalone armies like DA, SW or BA maybe, in fact they're more than just a SM chapter, they're actually independent armies with their own codex. I don't see any problem in vanilla marines switching chapters though, it's the same thing that ork, tau, eldar, drukhari, necrons, sisters, tyranids, etc do all the time and no one complains. Changing codex could be moronic, switching subfactions within the same codex it's not, it adds longevity and variety to the game for people like me that hate playing the same lists over and over again.
I've only ever played the 18th and my list changes (almost) every game. do I want heavy assault, do I want rapid attack, do I want long range shooty, do I want all infantry??? my lists follow what I'm feeling like, not some rules based whatever is better stupidity. now my Bloody Rose & Flawless Host lists are pretty much static(more due to only having limited models for them) but hopefully in the near future, that will change.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/07 17:56:40
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Your info is out of date. But the argument is nobody would know for certain what a nerf to Eradicators would mean for dark angels, since anyone wanting to win a tourney wouldn't use DA to begin with. Not equating it to them being nerfed, just highlighting they've been a bottom 3 army the last 2 years.
Marines of a basic variety across all marine books, are going to 2 wounds with terminators at 3 and GW confirmed that all marine books apart from grey knights will be supplements off the new core codex.
That sadly renders the bulk of your post obsolete.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/07 18:17:37
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Your info is out of date. But the argument is nobody would know for certain what a nerf to Eradicators would mean for dark angels, since anyone wanting to win a tourney wouldn't use DA to begin with. Not equating it to them being nerfed, just highlighting they've been a bottom 3 army the last 2 years.
Marines of a basic variety across all marine books, are going to 2 wounds with terminators at 3 and GW confirmed that all marine books apart from grey knights will be supplements off the new core codex.
That sadly renders the bulk of your post obsolete.
Okay at this point in the conversation I am not even sure what your point is and why you are arguing other than for the sake of argument.
I think we can agree that DA are in a poor place. That has nothing to do with a nerf to Eradicators. If Eradicators are nerfed it is not going to make DA any better or worse with all things considered.
I am not even sure you are reading my post at this point based on your responses, you seem to be arguing against some perceived argument rather than what I am actually typing.
Eonfuzz wrote: Hot take, different colours do not count as different factions. Tell me when Snakebites or nephrek even exist in the tournament space.
Weird, I recall blood angels, dark angels, death watch and space wolves all being stand alone codex with unique rules. Let me know when snakebites get a codex and you have a point.
Incase the plot has gone overhead, that is the point.
Good, would you also disagree dark angels being bottom makes "marines" have a bottom tier army then? Or are you happy to stand by your stance that by having a different codex they're utterly separate (which to me is correct).
Are 90%+ of the dark angels units basically the same as Space Marines just with a different paint scheme and a couple extra glyphs?
They are?
Then no, DA are just a different sub faction of Space Marines. SM's can play any number of different chapters by just saying "I know they are green, but they are Iron Hands now" and they are already basically WYSIWYG
Excellent, marines were the worst army of 2019 and bottom 3 2020 if dark angels are simply "marines".
Again you are ignoring some key facts when regarding that information that makes you seem like you are being completely disingenuous when you use it.
In a tournament meta if one chapter has the best tactics hand down then the majority of tournament players are going to jump ship to that chapter regardless of how their marines are painted.
On the other hand my friend who is a die hard Deathwing DA player who goes to tournaments will continue to get trounced cause...all terminator army in 9th edition is a bit of a joke. I would hazard to guess that the majority of people who insist on bringing DA to tournaments fall into this category instead of the meta chasers.
Now, does that mean DA are bottom tier? Or does that mean that they do not play well to the current missions and have a hard time competing against the meta? (Read: Space Marines.) What about an optimized DA list vs a optimized SM list? What about an optimized DA list vs an optimized CSM list? Or any Xenos army? Those are relevant statistics.
It is safe the assume that the majority of the SM list are optimized meta chasing list because of the pure abundance of tournament players that are high caliber that are taking SM to tournaments. Your options for the current 9th meta in tournaments is SM or some sort of anti-SM skew list, that says a lot.
You raise the exact problem, people throw shade on "marines" but dark angels in this example are a complete unknown since as you say, they're not used by the top players and their only results are fluffier fans. So we have no idea as to their balance other than "worse than the others".
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
DA are not SM. Codex: Space Marine is an entirely different codex as of right this minute. Sure, DA could probably use some love but because of the current Primaris fits all solution that GW has going right now they and all other Marines are losing their identity.
I have not kept up to date 100% on current rumors but I remember hearing that DA, BA, and SW might be reduced to supplements to the core SM codex. If that is the case than more and more you are going to see them lose their unique traits in favor of more Primaris units which is where I believe GW is heading. It happened to my Black Templars and now that First Born are being phased out slowly I could see it happening to all other SM chapters.
Most of the complaints people have right now are about Primaris units, which are not exclusive to any SM chapter, and the amount of free stuff that SM get for being SM. The rerolls on top of rerolls, the liberal sprinkling of AP modifiers and now the 2D weapons that are all of the place to answer the move to 2W SM that negatively effect all Xenos armies in significant ways.
Your info is out of date. But the argument is nobody would know for certain what a nerf to Eradicators would mean for dark angels, since anyone wanting to win a tourney wouldn't use DA to begin with. Not equating it to them being nerfed, just highlighting they've been a bottom 3 army the last 2 years.
Marines of a basic variety across all marine books, are going to 2 wounds with terminators at 3 and GW confirmed that all marine books apart from grey knights will be supplements off the new core codex.
That sadly renders the bulk of your post obsolete.
Okay at this point in the conversation I am not even sure what your point is and why you are arguing other than for the sake of argument.
I think we can agree that DA are in a poor place. That has nothing to do with a nerf to Eradicators. If Eradicators are nerfed it is not going to make DA any better or worse with all things considered.
I am not even sure you are reading my post at this point based on your responses, you seem to be arguing against some perceived argument rather than what I am actually typing.
You opened with
Is a nerf to Eradicators going to cripple DA all of a sudden? Are DA being held up exclusively by Eradicators? No? Then why on earth are you equating this with DA being nerfed?
Nobody was talking about DA being nerfed. Nor did anyone talk about nerfing eradicators in the conversation you quoted. We were discussing tournamrnt win rates and participation alongside the generalising of the term "marines" from a terminology perspective.
I don't mean offense but you posted a generalised statement about the state of the game to a specific conversation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/07 20:00:59
Balance never sells. Imbalance always sells. I just have to look at WarGaming.net and their handling of Premium Tanks and Ships in World of Tanks/Warships to validate this theory.
I will not rest until the Tabletop Imperial Guard has been reduced to complete mediocrity. This is completely reflected in the lore.
Slayer6 wrote: Balance never sells. Imbalance always sells. I just have to look at WarGaming.net and their handling of Premium Tanks and Ships in World of Tanks/Warships to validate this theory.
........ in my defence I bought Belfast because she was a ship I'd had the oppertunity to go aboard when I was in London, I never even realized it was OP as hell until afterwards
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 03:51:24
argonak wrote: What price seems right for eradicators? Flamestorm aggressors are 40 points right now, and given they have two flamethrowers, it seems like the aggressor platform is pointed about 30. Multi Melta is 20 points so that puts at 50. But it’s assault and double shots, so maybe 55?
That puts one unit at exactly the same price as a squad of hellblasters. Does that seem comparable?
Hellblasters put out maximum 20 damage when overcharging and rapid fire. Eradicators could do maximum 36, but to only up to six models in one unit instead of ten.
Should eradicators take a mortal wound on a one if they double fire? That’s always been a plasma thing though. What if eradicator range was reduced to 18?
I think they're worth about 55 pts/model, same as a boltstorm Aggressor is now although they should probably go up a bit further, I think GW should increase their price to 48 because I don't want to shake things up too much and people should be allowed to enjoy their toys for a while, anything over a 20% pts change is too much IMO. The base value calculated to be fair by the game developers and the changes made because of playtester recommendations would have to be really far off for it to take more than a couple of years to achieve perfect balance with every unit if every unit was looked at every year.
You cannot really separate the price of the weapons and the base model, one without the other is just not the same. An ultra-durable unit with no damage is worth relatively little, same for an ultra-squishy unit with tonnes of damage, but an ultra-durable unit with tonnes of damage? That's worth a lot. But that's just sort of a theory thing. Another theory thing is that you don't want to scare people away from playing something because it looks bad in comparison with how good it was previously because it might still be good enough to win and have fun with, so GW should put the pts to a boil slowly over time that they can cook as many Eradicator players as possible and not have any of them jump out of the pot, just like they did with Iron Hands and Castellans. Plasma is hard to compare to due to overheating, do we compare the assault plasma or the RF plasma? Because advancing and firing supercharged plasma is suicide, not so for Eradicators which increases Eradicator threat range.
How do 6 Eradicators stack up against 10 Hellblasters? I don't even know if it matters, because we don't have a clue what a balanced unit looks like and I do not think GW does either. Basic game design is #1 buffs are more fun than nerfs and #2 all buffs and no nerfs creates power creep. Having some sort of anchor would be the first step to figuring out balance, so what sort of anchor can we use? Well since GW has made it a rule that no model can be under 5 pts that's where we need to find our anchor, what's the least valuable model in the game? A Brimstone Horror, a Grot or a Heretic Guardsman. How many Brimstone Horrors is an Eradicator worth is in itself also a difficult question because it depends on the meta-game of your community, in one meta-game (with lots of Brimstone Horrors for example) Eradicators might be worth 8 Brimstone Horrors, in another (with lots lots of Land Raiders for example) 16 Brimstone Horrors. I don't think Eradicators are worth 11 Brimstone Horrors, but I also think the rule of "no less than 5 pts for a model" was silly, it might be that these cheap units will be viable in some very tiny amounts and that's how GW desires for things to be. As long as every option is viable in some amount then I am happy, it's impossible to make every army list viable, if Orks continue taking Gretchin then I'll be happy and if 50% of SM lists don't use Eradicators I'll be happy with that as well.
*6x3W w/ T5 (55 pt Eradicator) vs 10x2W w/ T4 (33 pt Hellblaster). *162 vs 180 lasgun hits to kill. *108 vs 80 AP-1 boltgun hits to kill. *21,6 vs 14,4 overcharged plasma hits to kill. *13,5 vs 14,4 meltagun hits to kill.
If 10 RF Overcharged Hellblasters w/ Captain do 1X damage 6 Eradicators in RF range w/ Captain do: *0,6X damage against Gretchin. *0,6X damage against Intercessors. *0,8X damage against MANZ. *1,26X damage against Leman Russ/Knights/Land Raider
Eradicators have M5 but can Advance and shoot should they need it, for the math above I just assumed they were both outflanking. Captain is a neccessity for overcharging somewhat safely, he's still good for Eradicators, but that's point in favour of the Eradicators and even with the Captain you're losing an average of 17ish pts per Overcharged shooting attack, although it is not necessary against Gretchin and Guardsmen. Eradicators cannot effectively split fire, that's a downside, but one that can be mitigated against most armies. You can multiply the values for Eradicators by 1,1 if you want to check if the numbers for 50 pts/model is more to your liking or 1,25 if you think 40 pts per model is fair. If you wanted the equivalent of the above numbers, but think it is Eradicators that are fair and Hellblasters that need a buff then they would need to be 26 pts per model. That's 20 pts for an Intercessors and 6 pts for upgrading a bolt rifle to a range 30" AP-4 plasma gun.
Slayer6 wrote: Balance never sells. Imbalance always sells. I just have to look at WarGaming.net and their handling of Premium Tanks and Ships in World of Tanks/Warships to validate this theory.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/09/09 06:21:26
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Canoptek reanimator
Immolators were a hard sell
Howling banshees
Most of the ork buggies
Everyone's time worn favourite - reivers
There are plenty of dud/questionably ruled models released every year, thats just a selection.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Why is Garen tier 1? He's ancient. Why is Yone tier 2? He's the newest champion. Why is Lillia tier 3? She's the second newest champion? Why is Sett tier 3? He was the champion released before that. Riot releasing OP champions is not amazing when it gets nerfed within a month most of the time, neither is buffing an underperforming new champion after it has come down in price to 6300. I have bought a new champion with RP once I think and bought the rest for free and I still mainly play Garen, in good times and bad and there is generally at least a couple of champions with higher win-rates than the newest champion around. How about the other games or did you just want to mention some anti-Riot sentiment? If so, fair enough, but I still think lack of balance hurts the longevity and fun of games.
I think talk about balance and imbalance can be misleading here.
People often raise SC1 as great because its balanced (after countless patches). And I guess to a degree at the highest level of play it is - but this *balance* is that most matches come down to the interplay of two or three units, and who can micro their's better. The whole rest of the faction's roster is considered irrelevant.
In 40k terms I guess this is like saying if every faction had their "meta list" that could plausibly go 5-0 at a tournament it would be quite a healthy game - which is true. But for more casual players, there may still be issues, if 80% of given books out and out suck, or get crushed by similar lists built arbitrarily from other books.
World of Tanks at the same time is obviously imbalanced and (unless they've changed it) contains a fairly naked pay to win feature in gold ammo. But you aren't really required to play the bad tanks beyond levelling through to the one you presumably want to get, so this imbalance doesn't necesarilly undermine the game. It just makes the grind less pleasant. I feel World of Warships is a much better game before T7, since almost all the early ships are viable in a good player's hands. Whereas some tanks are explicitly near unplayable. This suggests I like *balance* in a game. No one liked old - old world of tanks when the KV-1 was Tier 5 and could end up in matches against Tier 3s and so you were an unkillable god - unless you were driving the KV-1 (as I think 1/3rd of people did.)
Prior to Marines 2.0 I felt 8th edition was very balanced from a casual perspective. Yes if someone brought flyer spam, or Castellan+Guard+3 smash captains, they were probably going to win. But most people didn't own or want to own that specific combination of models.
By contrast, with any chapter, if you just stick a load of shooting units next to a chapter master + lieutenant, and the dice don't scream their hatred of all probablity, you just wipe out "casual" lists with near impunity.
This is why I think we see this dichotomy between "tabled by turn 2" and "wut, good players don't get tabled". No, good players don't, because their lists and play styles have had to evolve to deal with this ludicrous level of damage output. Your casual players however continue to plonk down their mis-match of units based on what they own, what they like etc, and get stomped.
And the Eradicators represent this in spades. They are completely warping the meta, they need to be nerfed into oblivion.
The problem with never and always sentences is that they are easy to disprove and using two samples to prove a theory is also not enough. You cannot say how the games would do if they got rid of premium tanks and ships, Riot games League of Legends does not have pay to win and it became one of the biggest games in the world by selling cosmetics. How about Counter-Strike, Overwatch and Fortnite? Western MMOs vs. Eastern ones. SC1 vs SC2. 8th ed 40k vs 7th ed 40k.
League typically overbuffs their new champions so that people chasing the latest OP thing who don't have enough blue essence on hand to buy them will fork over real money to do so my man.
I can't think of a recent new release that wasn't either overpowered or buffed on release to be overpowered.
Why is Garen tier 1? He's ancient. Why is Yone tier 2? He's the newest champion. Why is Lillia tier 3? She's the second newest champion? Why is Sett tier 3? He was the champion released before that. Riot releasing OP champions is not amazing when it gets nerfed within a month most of the time, neither is buffing an underperforming new champion after it has come down in price to 6300. I have bought a new champion with RP once I think and bought the rest for free and I still mainly play Garen, in good times and bad and there is generally at least a couple of champions with higher win-rates than the newest champion around. How about the other games or did you just want to mention some anti-Riot sentiment? If so, fair enough, but I still think lack of balance hurts the longevity and fun of games.
Calm down fangirl, Riot very much tends to make characters stronger on release, and tones them down afterwards (If they prove to be too strong).
Which is one of the main reasons why heroes aren't available in ranked immediately
TBF though, Riot atleast attempts to balance it's roster somewhat often, and does so for free, unlike GW which demands you shell over money for a balance patch every year once...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Prior to Marines 2.0 I felt 8th edition was very balanced from a casual perspective. Yes if someone brought flyer spam, or Castellan+Guard+3 smash captains, they were probably going to win. But most people didn't own or want to own that specific combination of models.
That's exactly how I was feeling about that period. Skew overpowered tournament lists were extremely uncommon in real life (heck, here even the loyal32 was never a thing, only WAAC dudes were willing to buy 3 boxes, 2 characters and a codex from a different faction) and average SM lists were absolutely ok, if not even pretty good.
Codex SM 2.0 has been a huge problem because it enhanced a tipycal/average collection of models (not necessarily a skew list) to a very powerful one. Same with Gulliman during index times: the UM player didn't need the overpowered tournament list with 6+ razorbacks to crush index opponents; an average SM army was already too good for most of the other players since the buffs that Primarch gave to the army were massive.
That's why I never consider tournament results alone to dictate the state of a faction; those data are based on skew lists that only represent a tiny fraction of the 40k universe. Sometimes an army is a top tier thanks to a single built that only WAAC of people with 10k points collection actually field, sometimes it's broken at any possible level (read: Iron Hands). Numbers should always be put into a context.
And usually have more than one shot between HB, Grav, Frag, Plasma, etc.
Which either is way worse or a lascannon.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/09/09 09:01:41
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
He's not (also champions being released in an overtuned state does not preclude older champions also being currently overpowered).
Why is Yone tier 2? He's the newest champion.
He's not.
Why is Lillia tier 3? She's the second newest champion?
Wasn't playing or otherwise paying attention to League during her release so I can't say. Judging by who you think is tier 1 (Garen lol) I'm going to assume that you frankly don't know what you're talking about.
Why is Sett tier 3? He was the champion released before that.
That was almost eight months ago.
Sett had a 55% win rate on release and was one of the strongest champions in the game as well as the strongest top laner. You're looking at post-nerf Sett who is still good.
Riot releasing OP champions is not amazing when it gets nerfed within a month most of the time, neither is buffing an underperforming new champion after it has come down in price to 6300. I have bought a new champion with RP once I think and bought the rest for free and I still mainly play Garen, in good times and bad and there is generally at least a couple of champions with higher win-rates than the newest champion around. How about the other games or did you just want to mention some anti-Riot sentiment? If so, fair enough, but I still think lack of balance hurts the longevity and fun of games.
New champions who are underperforming are often hotfixed buffed actually, while still 11,000 blue essence.
And League has undeniably been power creeped. Almost every new champions has some high elo or professional value kit-wise and rotates in and out of the meta. How often do you think Tryndamere shows up Masters+?
I don't know anything about the other games but Riot is certainly power creeping their game buddy. I also don't particularly have a problem with it; most old kits are uninteractive and frankly boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: TBF though, Riot atleast attempts to balance it's roster somewhat often, and does so for free, unlike GW which demands you shell over money for a balance patch every year once...
Yeah that's true GW sucks.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/09/09 13:43:08
And usually have more than one shot between HB, Grav, Frag, Plasma, etc.
Which either is way worse or a lascannon.
1 S8 Melta shot vs T7 (bonus MM) - .4489 X 1D6 rerolled - the average of 2d6-take-best is 4.472 (even further in MM favor as you don't necessarily take the best) - 2.007
4 S5 D3 shots doesn't feel a way worse either. 2.66 Wounds per turn Assuming T7 is 3+
Lillia was released with a 45% WR and hasn't gotten above 48% since, it sure is a funny koinkidink that you didn't play when she was released, but you seem like a good honest debater so I will trust you. /s
I have seen a mix of strong and weak Yones in normals and according to the stats he's weak in ranked, I was a little surprised to see Garen tier 1 on a tier list, but I play him sub-optimally on purpose to have fun in normals so I don't really care most of the time. Power creep might be necessary if everything is the same, like in alpha MTG with the power level of the average creature there was almost no space to distinctify 200 different 1-mana Red creatures from 200 different 1-mana Blue creatures, MTG needed to power creep to increase their design space, same thing for early LOL where champions often had 3-4 abilities and 1-3 passives instead of 4-7 abilities and 1-5 passives. I don't think the same is true for 40k, Doctrines and Chapter Tactics were not necessary for showing that an army is Salamanders or Raven Guard, give people a balanced codex and they'll play snipers if they are RG or flamers if they are Salamanders, even if you give Salamanders a massive buff to flamers, if those flamers are overcosted even with the buffs they will still see little play. I think increasing the amount of Stratagems factions have has reduced how distinct one faction is from another rather than magnify it, no longer is it just WE and Black Templars that have an anti-psychic Strat, now it's also Iron Hands, which makes WE and BT less distinct. No doctrines, no chapter tactics, 20-30 shared Stratagems, choose 5 when writing your list and those are the ones you get to use, this would let people show you how they want their army to look and let whatever few Stratagems they choose to represent their list truly have an impact.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/09/09 11:34:40
