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.
To go with the Tyranid-DE game - the Tyranid player would have had an extra 2" of depth to hide in which might have spared some models from first turn liquifiers - but not hugely so. (The DE player will also make different choices on where to place models if they can't shoot anything.)
Tyel wrote: To go with the Tyranid-DE game - the Tyranid player would have had an extra 2" of depth to hide in which might have spared some models from first turn liquifiers - but not hugely so. (The DE player will also make different choices on where to place models if they can't shoot anything.)
Not sure. It was a low scoring game since DE made no real attempt at primaries.
It may have been more appropriate for the nid player to reserve more and bring the DE in the come from both sides and divide them up.
Then he could have had the first strike and preserved his key units.
Whether or not DE are too strong in some aspects shouldn't mean we abandon adapting how we approach fighting them.
In my game against sisters I put the monolith into deepstrike, because I didn’t want to see it blasted turn 1, however I should have placed it.
Why? Multiple reasons.
1) he was going to castle the retributors for rerolls leaving me more space to deploy safely
2) if he was concerned about it it would have kept the retributors from focusing entirely the warriors
3) the monolith could have handily wiped more than a few mortifiers giving me more room to breathe
4) if my warriors weren't decimated I could have run up the board and dropped solar pulse and pulled off a couple of his squads
But this is a difficult decision since deepstrike happens before all deployment and so only experience would have given me enough insight.
I think we are going to see a general points increase (not just fixing the Reavers). The Book of Rust rules interactions require adjustment (I think this book missed rigorous playtesting). Finally, Eviscerating Flyby either needs a cap on total Mortal Wounds or only generate MWs on a 6. I'd prefer to see a cap.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think we are going to see a general points increase (not just fixing the Reavers). The Book of Rust rules interactions require adjustment (I think this book missed rigorous playtesting). Finally, Eviscerating Flyby either needs a cap on total Mortal Wounds or only generate MWs on a 6. I'd prefer to see a cap.
All fair. I really hope dark tech itself gets nerfed rather than the weapons/units it makes abusive. Itd suck to see a point nerf to liquifiers because theyre busted when you make them +1 to wound 2D.
I can see point nerfs to raiders, Wyches, succubi and hellions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I think we are going to see a general points increase (not just fixing the Reavers). The Book of Rust rules interactions require adjustment (I think this book missed rigorous playtesting). Finally, Eviscerating Flyby either needs a cap on total Mortal Wounds or only generate MWs on a 6. I'd prefer to see a cap.
Given the standard exchange rate for "mws on demand" appears to be 1cp for 2 basically anywhere on the board, and eviserating requires you to manage to move over a unit which means iys at least pretty unlikely turn 1 I think a cap of 6 or at lowest 5 makes sense. 6 would allow you to make full use out of it with Reavers (unit cap 12) who seem to be the less problematic unit using it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 15:39:56
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Points aren't normally addressed with FAQs, unless they are printed wrong....as with the Reavers.
The Razorflail madness will be dealt with I'm sure.
Switching DT to wound rolls seems like an easy fix.
I wouldn't be averse to an Evicerating Flyby MW cap, but that said I'm not convinced that 20-strong Hellion units are actually managing to pull off mega damage outside of theoretical fever dreams.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 16:01:12
yukishiro1 wrote: (can't use miracle dice on them, no subfaction benefits, etc).
Hmm, well, I think I need a word with my opponent on that. MD'd his charge.
It's a common mistake, probably not deliberate cheating. I think they're actually the only unit in the book that has the Sisters keyword but not the Acts of Faith ability, which is what actually determines whether you can use miracle dice on that unit or not, so a lot of people don't realize they're excluded. It also means you don't get any dice when they destroy something, etc. They also lack sacred rights, so if they're running pure sisters, mortifiers don't get those bonuses either, so no exploding 6s or +1 to advance or charge either, for example.
They can use strats like advance and charge because that's keyed to being Sisters keyworded. But the lack of those things and also the lack of subfaction benefits is why they're so powerful in terms of base stats, and also why they aren't an autotake.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 16:01:42
No, my worry is they don't address DT/cult of strife rust content in the faq and just obliterate yhe units that use those things next CA.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Tyel wrote: To go with the Tyranid-DE game - the Tyranid player would have had an extra 2" of depth to hide in which might have spared some models from first turn liquifiers - but not hugely so. (The DE player will also make different choices on where to place models if they can't shoot anything.)
Not without changing the measurements in the mission. Distances are measured in such a way on the maps that armies are the same distance apart no matter how big the board is- usually this means measuring from the centre line.
So even if you change board size, unless you extrapolate how big the deployment zone would be on a minimum size board, and then measure that distance from your resized board edge, the distance between armies doesn't change. If not for this design feature, they couldn't call it a minimum size.
On the new boards each deployment zone is shallower than the old boards. If you deploy on the line you're still an equal distance from the opponent's line, but not from their board edge. It makes a significant difference in your ability to stay out of range on T1.
True, but taking advantage of the extra 2 inches of depth puts you 2" further back from centre line objectives as well as your enemy, so you trade one problem for another in a progressive objective oriented mission.
PenitentJake wrote: True, but taking advantage of the extra 2 inches of depth puts you 2" further back from centre line objectives as well as your enemy, so you trade one problem for another in a progressive objective oriented mission.
Might be worth it, but it still isn't ideal.
Except that the exact strategy the drukhari player employed in that game - disregard objectives, charge headlong into the enemy to inflict maximum turn 1 casualties before the enemy gets a chance to act - is made DIRECTLY easier by slicing those inches off the DZ. With that additional 2" the nid player would have tanked 6 fewer Liquifiers than he did in that game - the drukhari player used a strat to move 8", then rolled 6", 5", 5", 4" for advances. Only the 8" and 6" would have been in range.
Its not a game changer every game but against this kind of obnoxious skew the option to get up against ones DZ is supremely helpful.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
PenitentJake wrote: True, but taking advantage of the extra 2 inches of depth puts you 2" further back from centre line objectives as well as your enemy, so you trade one problem for another in a progressive objective oriented mission.
Might be worth it, but it still isn't ideal.
Except that the exact strategy the drukhari player employed in that game - disregard objectives, charge headlong into the enemy to inflict maximum turn 1 casualties before the enemy gets a chance to act - is made DIRECTLY easier by slicing those inches off the DZ. With that additional 2" the nid player would have tanked 6 fewer Liquifiers than he did in that game - the drukhari player used a strat to move 8", then rolled 6", 5", 5", 4" for advances. Only the 8" and 6" would have been in range.
Its not a game changer every game but against this kind of obnoxious skew the option to get up against ones DZ is supremely helpful.
I suspect the terrain wasn't very useable, but it is hard to judge from those shapes.
Also, if the DE player is willing to burn CP to run at you then opponents should be willing to burn CP to hide stuff. Secondaries are known before deploy. It should be relatively clear what is going to happen.
The other reason this list likely isn't popular ( and hasn't been so far ) is because you might go 5-0, but you won't score as well as other DE lists with a more rigorous approach to objectives. It's kind of like the guy on Counterstrike who only cared about KD ratio and didn't concern himself with the bomb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 18:58:58
I do wonder what points are balanced against - are they against the full range of 9th codexes, or a mixture? My understanding ws that they more or less wrote the 9th codexes at the same time and tested accordingly, which means at launch they aren't balanced to the game as is.
Umbros wrote: I do wonder what points are balanced against - are they against the full range of 9th codexes, or a mixture? My understanding ws that they more or less wrote the 9th codexes at the same time and tested accordingly, which means at launch they aren't balanced to the game as is.
I've listened and watched a lot of playtester content and read the White Dwarf article on playtesting, it is my interpretation that they are balanced against unreleased rules. Hence the "everything will be better when everyone has their codex" attitude.
Why is Drukhari busted? It's because of those damn knife-ear podcasters, I've been saying they should have been kicked off the playtesting team for a while now. They couldn't catch the obvious imbalance in the rules for the Aspect Shrines in Phoenix Rising. The Dire Avengers overwatch bonus is no more impactful than the generic shooting bonus is while firing overwatch. /s
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 20:02:03
A small tournament just finished with Nayden at the top with DE, Ynnari, and CW soup. His DE portion was DT with Drazhar, Succubus, 3x5 Wracks, 3 Grots, and 3 raiders. Ynnari was also DE - Visarch, Wyches, Brides, and Incubi.
2nd (WWW) was Mechanicus
3rd (WWW) was DE with 10 point reavers & DL/RF Succubus - played CSM soup, Sisters, and WS 4th (LWW) was CSM soup (Bile & DG)
5th (WWL) was DE with DL/RF Succubus - played DE, DA w/ Baneblade, Scions & Bullgryns
6th (WWL) was DE with 10 point reavers - played SW, Necrons, and Mechanicus
7th (WWL) was WS
One other DE (WLL) with DL/RF Succubus - played Orks, Nayden, and Necrons
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/25 20:09:19
Umbros wrote: I do wonder what points are balanced against - are they against the full range of 9th codexes, or a mixture? My understanding ws that they more or less wrote the 9th codexes at the same time and tested accordingly, which means at launch they aren't balanced to the game as is.
I've listened and watched a lot of playtester content and read the White Dwarf article on playtesting, it is my interpretation that they are balanced against unreleased rules. Hence the "everything will be better when everyone has their codex" attitude.
Why is Drukhari busted? It's because of those damn knife-ear podcasters, I've been saying they should have been kicked off the playtesting team for a while now. They couldn't catch the obvious imbalance in the rules for the Aspect Shrines in Phoenix Rising. The Dire Avengers overwatch bonus is no more impactful than the generic shooting bonus is while firing overwatch. /s
I think it's a more fundamental problem than this.
Full disclosure, I'm a Drukhari player and absolutely see some definite issues with regards to balance in the new Codex - a number of us have been discussing it at length (and pretty constructively and honestly) in the Drukhari tactics thread. It's a great book with some wonderful content, but I don't think anyone who's being truly objective can say there aren't some very obvious problems that need addressing too.
I think a big part of the issue is that GW does not have a robust, professional system for testing the content it is looking to release.
My whole career, I've worked in the software industry as professional QA. First in the games industry for a very major developer, then in aviation, working on the software civilian ATC use, and military fighter control systems for some countries.
There's a lot of overlap that I've observed between how you (attempt to) exhaustively test software, and how you could/should be testing a professionally produced game like 40K. Much of both essentially comes down to mathematics - an ISEB qualified tester knows there are tools and techniques to account for many elements in that area.
What GW appear to employ, is something more like a reward system where prominent members of the community can become part of the test group. That's not to say they can't provide valuable feedback, but they are not trained testers. There is not a robust test process in place in that environment.
You also cannot rely on the rules team and writers to properly test their own work - for exactly the same reason as you do not allow a developer to be the sole individual testing their software - testing needs to be independent.
Competitively (and I've never seen this mentioned bizarrely), there's also a big issue of 'fairness' when prominent competitive players are members of the playtesting group - as many are/have been. They have early access to rules, lists, testing of lists, that isn't available to others - that's a distinct advantage. I know of at least one occasion in 8th where a test group member won a major event with a brand new codex.
I think these are discussions worth having as a community. These issues are not just happening with the DE codex - they're occurring in release after release.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/25 20:26:45
GW didn't used to do playtesting at all, they consider it big progress to dole out playtester "status" to influencers to keep them on side. I'm sure most of those people genuinely do their best, but they're unpaid volunteers there on sufferance, you're never going to get good results from a program like that. I'm sure most of the people involved try to do their best, but the whole program is just a big joke.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW didn't used to do playtesting at all, they consider it big progress to dole out playtester "status" to influencers to keep them on side. I'm sure most of those people genuinely do their best, but they're unpaid volunteers there on sufferance, you're never going to get good results from a program like that. I'm sure most of the people involved try to do their best, but the whole program is just a big joke.
Them being unpaid volunteers is definitely part of the issue. It's far easier to ignore a member of the public who is grateful to be included, than a paid member of staff you're employing to be critical.
It's very clearly a system that isn't working in it's current form.
Umbros wrote: I do wonder what points are balanced against - are they against the full range of 9th codexes, or a mixture? My understanding ws that they more or less wrote the 9th codexes at the same time and tested accordingly, which means at launch they aren't balanced to the game as is.
I've listened and watched a lot of playtester content and read the White Dwarf article on playtesting, it is my interpretation that they are balanced against unreleased rules. Hence the "everything will be better when everyone has their codex" attitude.
Why is Drukhari busted? It's because of those damn knife-ear podcasters, I've been saying they should have been kicked off the playtesting team for a while now. They couldn't catch the obvious imbalance in the rules for the Aspect Shrines in Phoenix Rising. The Dire Avengers overwatch bonus is no more impactful than the generic shooting bonus is while firing overwatch. /s
I think it's a more fundamental problem than this.
Full disclosure, I'm a Drukhari player and absolutely see some definite issues with regards to balance in the new Codex - a number of us have been discussing it at length (and pretty constructively and honestly) in the Drukhari tactics thread. It's a great book with some wonderful content, but I don't think anyone who's being truly objective can say there aren't some very obvious problems that need addressing too.
I think a big part of the issue is that GW does not have a robust, professional system for testing the content it is looking to release.
My whole career, I've worked in the software industry as professional QA. First in the games industry for a very major developer, then in aviation, working on the software civilian ATC use, and military fighter control systems for some countries.
There's a lot of overlap that I've observed between how you (attempt to) exhaustively test software, and how you could/should be testing a professionally produced game like 40K. Much of both essentially comes down to mathematics - an ISEB qualified tester knows there are tools and techniques to account for many elements in that area.
What GW appear to employ, is something more like a reward system where prominent members of the community can become part of the test group. That's not to say they can't provide valuable feedback, but they are not trained testers. There is not a robust test process in place in that environment.
You also cannot rely on the rules team and writers to properly test their own work - for exactly the same reason as you do not allow a developer to be the sole individual testing their software - testing needs to be independent.
Competitively (and I've never seen this mentioned bizarrely), there's also a big issue of 'fairness' when prominent competitive players are members of the playtesting group - as many are/have been. They have early access to rules, lists, testing of lists, that isn't available to others - that's a distinct advantage. I know of at least one occasion in 8th where a test group member won a major event with a brand new codex.
I think these are discussions worth having as a community. These issues are not just happening with the DE codex - they're occurring in release after release.
This is all pretty obvious but I don't see it changing any time soon. There just wouldn't be that great of a ROI for paying professional testers.
The other reason this list likely isn't popular ( and hasn't been so far ) is because you might go 5-0, but you won't score as well as other DE lists with a more rigorous approach to objectives. It's kind of like the guy on Counterstrike who only cared about KD ratio and didn't concern himself with the bomb.
The other reason(s) this list isn't popular is that it uses the troops option that is twice as expensive because they come in boxes of 5 instead of 10, it is embarrassingly skew/waac, it's boring to collect and look at on the table and literally the only reason I can think of to take it is to win and (rightfully) earn the title of TFG for bringing it.
Yes, you can exploit a rules interaction that was overlooked and will likely be nerfed and have a fair chance to stomp faces all day long. But if you bring 32 liquifier guns to the table, does stomping face all day really make for your boring looking army that you had to take out a second mortgage to pay for, or the fact that everyone will mock you as TFG for the rest of your gaming "career"?
Could you even take any pride in the win? I mean, I don't play tournaments, so maybe the attitude expressed by bringing a list like this is more common than I realize; I've seen people say that it's not a player's responsibility to avoid bringing something broken, and it's the company's responsibility to limit the possibility that something broken can built. I get that, and don't entirely disagree. But the argument itself just sounds like something an @$$h0l3 would say: "It's not my responsibility to so say 'please,' it's YOUR responsibility to not depend on and expect others to adhere to out-dated notions of manners; It's not my responsibility to say sorry, it's your responsibility to not be offended by my actions in the first place."
This is why so many casuals are repulsed by meta-chasing. This guy would get exactly one game against me and any of the folks I play with, and we'd mock him and people like him amongst ourselves behind closed doors for the rest of our collective lives, and we'd tell the story without dropping his name to every noob we ever taught as an example of how not to play the game... Or make friends.
But I guess we're all different, with unique points of view.
They could just hire like two guys for a start, two pros vetting a codex / supplément would have surely seen most of the stuff that is wrong with current Drukari, at least the obvious things everyone here agrees on
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
addnid wrote: They could just hire like two guys for a start, two pros vetting a codex / supplément would have surely seen most of the stuff that is wrong with current Drukari, at least the obvious things everyone here agrees on
It's probably what I would do. Have an experienced test manager and a senior tester write a test plan and scripts for the volunteer group to use, alongside guiding their efforts via mentoring and more directed testing. That alone would make a huge difference.
At a guess, knowing tester wages - especially in the entertainment sector - that'd cost GW maybe £45-50K a year. A little more if they're feeling generous. Those staff wouldn't produce anything tangible, but the gains in your reputation and goodwill from the player base in having a more robust ruleset, is very hard to put a price on...
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/04/25 22:04:12
Balance isn't a priority for GW; they are a company that sells plastic, the rules are only useful to the extent they sell more plastic. The most sales are generated by a game with balance that is not so far out of whack that people quit over it, but with enough stirring of the pot to get people constantly buying new stuff. I don't think they usually go out of their way to specifically overtune or undertune stuff, but by the same token, they have no real incentive to hire paid playtesters when the current approach sells tons of plastic just fine.
The only way I can see them really changing how they write rules and do balance is if there is a concerted fan boycott and campaign, and we all know that's not remotely in the cards.
yukishiro1 wrote: Balance isn't a priority for GW; they are a company that sells plastic, the rules are only useful to the extent they sell more plastic. The most sales are generated by a game with balance that is not so far out of whack that people quit over it, but with enough stirring of the pot to get people constantly buying new stuff. I don't think they usually go out of their way to specifically overtune or undertune stuff, but by the same token, they have no real incentive to hire paid playtesters when the current approach sells tons of plastic just fine.
The only way I can see them really changing how they write rules and do balance is if there is a concerted fan boycott and campaign, and we all know that's not remotely in the cards.
I fully agree. I believe GW has even said so themselves in the past - they're primarily a model making company. It makes you wonder how aware they are though of how necessary the lore and rules are at propping up that model making business? Both really rely on the other.
I don't think many people would deny they make some of the most exceptional miniatures on the market. I suspect many in the community, outside the die hard fans, would likely also not deny that they are often lacking in the way they support their games in terms of rules and writing.
For very little expense (especially given their profit margins currently), you get a whole lot of gain in the area where they are weak. I'm certain at least as much to offset that cost (it just wouldn't require a large paid team in my estimation), while enjoying a better reputation as company with a more professional product.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 00:25:10
StrayIight wrote: I fully agree. I believe GW has even said so themselves in the past - they're primarily a model making company.
Taking a statement from an investor report doesn't mean GW only cares about making plastic or that they don't understand the value of good rules. That level of introspection is too fine of a detail that few investors will ever care about. Miniatures are the core business and that's what gets talked about ( alongside IP ).
There probably isn't a way to truly find if they truly care about rules. There probably hasn't been a lot of turnover in that department so until some disgruntled employee appears we may never know.
Spoiler:
Our ambitions remain clear: to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world, to engage and inspire our customers, and to sell our products globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever. Our decisions are focused on long-term success, not short-term gains.
The first element - we make high quality miniatures. We understand that what we make may not appeal to everyone, so to recruit and rerecruit customers we are absolutely focused on making our models the best in the world. In order to continue to do that forever and to deliver a decent return to our owners, we sell them for a price that we believe represents the investment in their quality.
The second element is that we make fantasy miniatures based in our endless, imaginary worlds. This gives us control over the imagery and styles we use and ownership of the intellectual property (IP).
The third element is that we are customer focused. We talk to our customers. We aim to communicate in an open, fun way. Whoever and wherever our customers are, and in whichever way they want to engage with Warhammer, we will do our utmost to support them. The fourth element is the global nature of our business. We seek out our customers all over the world. We believe that our customers carry our Warhammer hobby gene and to help find them we have two key tools: our retail chain and our online content. In retail we continue to apply our tried and tested approach of recruiting customers - in our own stores, by showcasing the Warhammer hobby and offering a fantastic customer experience. Online our offering has never been richer. Through Warhammer-community.com and social media we reach thousands of new people every day, showing them the very best aspects of the Warhammer hobby and inviting them to join our global community of enthusiastic fans.
We design all of our products at our HQ in Nottingham. Employing 231 people, the design studio creates all the IP and all the associated miniatures, artwork, games and publications that we sell. Annually, these specialist staff produce hundreds of new sculpts, illustrations, rules, stories etc. enabling us to deliver new products every week and continue to keep our customers engaged and excited.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 00:44:13
