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.
or that they don't understand the value of good rules.
If they do, they aren't great at investing in them and demonstrating that. We can see - with many, many examples - that things are getting released full of errors and issues. Basic proof-reading at times is an issue.
GW pretty much said around a year ago when 9th was being previewed that their intention was to make everything bigger and better. Everything is more deadly and everything has more special sauce. And that's fine if you add granularity to things like wounds and damage, which they are doing (inconsistently) so I do think it's a case that if every book is treated with the same care and attention, 9th will be well balanced this time next year.
My worry is that when codexes aren't given enough special sauce they are left out in the cold. This happened to Necrons in 8th edition and so far they also have the weakest of the 9th edition books and it isn't even close IMO. If a handful of other factions get and underwhelming book compared to say, Death Guard or Dark Eldar (polar opposite play styles but both very good) then you will simply end up with the haves and have nots and that is really bad for the game
Corporations are mostly reactive, not innovative. The reason why testing is so important in many industries is because they learned the hard way, with billions of losses.
GW meanwhile exists in a far safer environment. No one is dying and/or suing GW for millions in the case of a rule error. Nor do they have to comply to government enforced quality and security standards. Nor does GW has to worry about billions of loses for having to recall entire product launches.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 00:59:28
As others have said, I just hope the problems with DT and BoR are addressed with a scalpel and not a sledgehammer. I can see GW making liquifiers unusable, while not touching DT, the thing that makes them egregious. So me who plays Coven of Twelve loses a tool in my kit because some ne’er do wells abused a trait for two weeks in tournaments.
The reaver points should be FAQ’d. I’m not a fan of the BoR out of principal and even less so that it way overpowers an already powerful obsession. I think it should be for narrative only, or limited to a Cult of Strife army only. Dark Tecnomancers will be interesting. Maybe requiring a hot roll for all weapons to use it would be enough? Taking away the wound or damage buff? Looking at several lists with 6+ liquifiers means the crosshairs are really on that trait... Finally, I agree there should be a mortal wound cap; most if not all other strats and wargears have those limitations.
Ultimately, I just want to continue having a competitive, fast moving transport reliant army to play with. I feel DE finally have that. They should be toned down though, but not made unplayable. I don’t trust GW to hit that sweet spot when the time comes.
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.
Salt donkey wrote: Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.
In fairness, DG put in a decent showing. They placed 13th, went 4-1 and only missed out on the top ten on points. They were also the only list that defeated the 9th place Drukhari list.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/26 06:42:33
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.
Interesting post
I don't think playtesters getting an unfair advantage is a problem, the same applies to any other game right?
I was thinking GW could work with another game company, perhaps Creative Assembly with whom they a relationship in the Total War Warhammer series or Blizzard with their competitive RTS Starcraft or at least get a QA tester to do a speaking gig to help develop the testing methodology. Do you regularly take classes and certifications as a QA tester?
Things have to be very broken when models that should cost 5 cost 55 and models that should cost 20 cost 10, that's not just a playtesting issue, that's a lack of proof-reading the points, if GW cannot even proof-read their points costs right then what does it matter if their testing team becomes great at their job? That is why I think hiring full time paid playtesters is unneeded.
A restaurant can serve Wagyu ribeye steak, the best beef in the world or find a cheap cut of beef that is normally very tough and prepare it right by using a sous vide cooker and still make a delicious and tender piece of beef at a fraction of the cost. Instead of having to continually pay for the Wagyu full time playtester GW should get the sous vide QA speaker and change the way they use their unpaid playtesters to make a great product.
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
They already have professional 40k players looking at the rules, do you really think a QA tester is that much better than someone who plays the game for a living?
Do you regularly take classes and certifications as a QA tester?
Not generally, or at least not specific to testing as a discipline. A professional tester will typically have passed an ISEB exam and be certified, that comes in three levels, the important one day to day being the foundation level. A lot of industry testers will also get involved with programming languages like Python etc, and so may then take up whatever certifications are expected by an organisation with regards to additional things like that.
Things have to be very broken when models that should cost 5 cost 55 and models that should cost 20 cost 10, that's not just a playtesting issue, that's a lack of proof-reading the points
Yup! Reavers recently are a horrendously obvious dropped ball in this regard. I suspect however they're centrally referencing data like points and the like internally (if there is anything in place beyond 'look in a semi recent book') isn't working for them too.
They already have professional 40k players looking at the rules, do you really think a QA tester is that much better than someone who plays the game for a living?
I'd have to disagree a little bit here. Firstly I don't know if there's such a thing as professional 40K player as yet. There certainly isn't the sort of event prizes in this game to make that viable. Maybe through commission painting, coaching services etc you might make the hobby a living? There's certainly a group of elite players who know the game well though.
Though I wouldn't say it's a matter of better, a proper QA tester brings techniques and methodology to the table that an enthusiastic elite player simply doesn't have: Boundary analysis, equivalence partitioning and so on. They're not all directly applicable to all elements of 40K necessarily, but many are. That said, they can be taught. Maybe the way forward would be just to have a few people come in temporarily and just help put some structure in place that they can then carry on using?
I've no definitive answers really - I don't think we can have any without some more idea of what's happening internally there. But certainly we all recognise there are issues, and things that can be done better. Here's hoping
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/26 07:34:39
It certainly would be better if GW would even listen to their testers, cue IH.
I think these playtesters that know the game "well enough" would bring far more to the table if GW corporate would not intervene against them / Ruleswriters actually listen.
Edit: another issue is that GW treats rules sales as recurring spending, and monetisation of veterans.
I dare say it's one of their highest margine profits (printing done in china mostly or the UK) and it's one which they can expect recurring investments of players.
Which makes the recent already supplement DLC^'s for new codices excactly what the gameing industry pulled with what is in essence cut content.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 07:58:54
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.
Not Online!!! wrote: It certainly would be better if GW would even listen to their testers, cue IH.
I think these playtesters that know the game "well enough" would bring far more to the table if GW corporate would not intervene against them / Ruleswriters actually listen.
Yeah, this was a massive issue in the games industry too. As QA you'd take a lot of flak from players and the community for not finding some obvious issue(s).
Reality is, we almost always do find it. It's reported and development want to fix that issue. Both departments care about the game they're making.
Execs though? Not so much. They don't play games, they make money for shareholders and want that ship date met. So the developers are told in no uncertain terms to leave it as is, and it's released in that state, possibly getting fixed in a later update.
And we all look like a bunch of amateurs.
The play testing group very likely have much the same frustration. I can't believe they aren't seeing and reporting at least some of this stuff that's slipping through.
Not Online!!! wrote: It certainly would be better if GW would even listen to their testers, cue IH.
I think these playtesters that know the game "well enough" would bring far more to the table if GW corporate would not intervene against them / Ruleswriters actually listen.
Yeah, this was a massive issue in the games industry too. As QA you'd take a lot of flak from players and the community for not finding some obvious issue(s).
Reality is, we almost always do find it. It's reported and development want to fix that issue. Both departments care about the game they're making.
Execs though? Not so much. They don't play games, they make money for shareholders and want that ship date met. So the developers are told in no uncertain terms to leave it as is, and it's released in that state, possibly getting fixed in a later update.
And we all look like a bunch of amateurs.
The play testing group very likely have much the same frustration. I can't believe they aren't seeing and reporting at least some of this stuff that's slipping through.
Well, occams razor and such applies, except anyone slightly familiar with the industry and i count GW in the gaming industry since it's fundamentally the same industry, knows that QA only really get's used to find the most obvious mistakes that are easy to manage to fix before the deadline is met and something needs to be released.
Quite frankly i don't envy you or anyone in there especially for the larger corporations, simply because it isn't "fun" or imo "productive" when you supposedly have to be critical for your job and then get basically ignored on 80-90% of the issues you bring up, simply because "MuSt MeEt CoNsUmEr DeAdLinE fOR sPenDinG pErIOd"...
It's the same reason why i pretty much stopped buying tripple A games. Certainly never anymore at around release.
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.
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
They already have professional 40k players looking at the rules, do you really think a QA tester is that much better than someone who plays the game for a living?
Well we could hope that a QA tester, on the payroll, would have more weight in the matter than a player who will be invited to come playtest for free.
But I agree with those here who think some of these things are reported yet ignored by execs. But I think overlooking things like 10 point reavers is basically the same as succubus with a million attacks for 60 points, oversight and lazy design both come from not dedicating enough person months for the writing the damn things. Execs would be happy to publish good stuff I think, as long as the deadlines are met. They just need to do a better job without it taking more time, and I think pros are needed, as well as "gamers who know the game".
Perhaps a few freelance QA pros would be a safer attempt than adding people on the payroll, as it was suggested. They could train the "gamers who know the game" to work fast and efficiently, so deadlines are met with the OP stuff caught well in advance.
It would be great if GW was more transparent on how they did all this, it would be good for their "community outreach" I think. Certainly would not cost them much financially, and they are currently in a "no release" time bubble, so I guess they have staff (who's job is to engage with the gamer community) with spare time on their hands, who could try and write something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 08:27:15
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
in technical matters and statistics and especially for explanation of interaction as to why something is broken, yes, a technical QA specialists are better for that and for a deeper understanding that is "scientifically" explainable which would especially help for further developments and evolution of the rulesset.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 08:26:12
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.
10ppm reavers don't matter though as everyone plays them as if they cost 20ppm. The italian version of the drukhari codex has already the cost of 20ppm printed correctly, like other translations.
Succubus is cheaper than it should be, granted, but we're talking about +15 or 20 points on a 1000-2000 points list, or 30/40 if there are two. I don't think that makes an army "OP", and even if that model has lots of potential it's still a melee only and ultra squishy unit. We're not talking about SM with 300 points of free stuff .
I don't like to repeat myself but if people struggle against drukhari just tailor against them. It has always been accepted to tailor against SM, why not doing it against drukhari? It's no surprise they win tournaments when most of the players design their lists to counter heavy elites. It's the same reason why old and crappy green tides make good results.
Blackie wrote: 10ppm reavers don't matter though as everyone plays them as if they cost 20ppm. The italian version of the drukhari codex has already the cost of 20ppm printed correctly, like other translations.
Succubus is cheaper than it should be, granted, but we're talking about +15 or 20 points on a 1000-2000 points list, or 30/40 if there are two. I don't think that makes an army "OP", and even if that model has lots of potential it's still a melee only and ultra squishy unit. We're not talking about SM with 300 points of free stuff .
I don't like to repeat myself but if people struggle against drukhari just tailor against them. It has always been accepted to tailor against SM, why not doing it against drukhari? It's no surprise they win tournaments when most of the players design their lists to counter heavy elites. It's the same reason why old and crappy green tides make good results.
You can't tailor against DT liquiefiers, and anyway you can't tailor against 10% of the meta, when all the players who only have power armour armies are going to be 50% at the very least of the playerbase attending the tournament.
Many good players I know have lost even when tailoring against them. But hey, try playing against a good druka player (you play orks that I know, perhaps you also play other armies, try the one you think is best), and see for yourself I am pretty certain you will, at least slightly, change your mind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 09:29:28
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
Sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "we're a model company not a rules company" arguably lead to the death of WHFB and the depths of 7th edition.
I assume the reason, as mentioned before in this thread, is the same as it almost always is.
QA finds these problems, and then they are ignored.
And as often happens with supplements, multiple rules from multiple locations not tested in conjunction with eachother.
Was the Book of Rust tested? was it tested with the new drukari rules? who knows.
That's why I disliked PA, it broke things more then it fixed and now GW is doing these extra rules books right from the start.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 10:02:37
There have been a few comments from current playtesters that indicate the problem may be more with GW not listening than the quality of the playtesting. Chef, from Tabletop Tactics, for example, has heavily implied they brought up the issue of the Necron Doomsday Cannon being too unreliable at D6 shots, D6 damage but that was obviously ignored. There were similar reports way back during 7th edition WHFB when the Dark Elf army book was playtested and the designer of that book ignored the testers. That book was one of the most broken in that edition.
There may also be problems with how the playtesting is done. I'd expect initial testing to probably concentrate on getting the feel right, maybe with some pre-made typical lists. But later testing should use the full rules to allow stress testing of combos and give testers a fuller picture of the army. I'm not sure that happens.
Things like the 10ppm Reavers should also be a day-1 fix. The mistake is almost certainly because the MFM, the WD version of the same and the DE Codex points were all pulled from the same source so once it's noticed once it should really be fixed immediately if the error has already been printed.
As a DE player it does look like there are several things that are pushing them into broken rather than just very powerful. DT is the obvious one but the ease with which you can spam DL is also a problem, as is the stupid Succubus combo. There are likely several other things that are a little too powerful, like Incubi, but at the moment they're being overshadowed by the uber-broken stuff. I hope GW takes a measured approach to the fixes here. Some can likely be done with points but others will need errata, such as DT. Increasing the cost of Liquifiers would be the wrong way to fix them, for example.
Salt donkey wrote: Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.
Yeah, seriously, what a nightmare meta. It was vastly more healthy and fair back when we had to break up the top placings by listing them as "iron hands, salamanders, iron hands, imperial fists, harlequins, white scars, raven guard, iron hands"
"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!"
As a DE player it does look like there are several things that are pushing them into broken rather than just very powerful. DT is the obvious one but the ease with which you can spam DL is also a problem, as is the stupid Succubus combo. There are likely several other things that are a little too powerful, like Incubi, but at the moment they're being overshadowed by the uber-broken stuff. I hope GW takes a measured approach to the fixes here. Some can likely be done with points but others will need errata, such as DT. Increasing the cost of Liquifiers would be the wrong way to fix them, for example.
As a Drukhari player, I disagree.
The Reaver points are an obvious error.
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
The Razorflail combo is laughable, and needs stamping on; frankly the faction could have done without the stuff from BoR altogether.
The rest is perfectly fine, your self flagellation over the codex is baffling.
Things like the 10ppm Reavers should also be a day-1 fix. The mistake is almost certainly because the MFM, the WD version of the same and the DE Codex points were all pulled from the same source so once it's noticed once it should really be fixed immediately if the error has already been printed.
The Drukhari codex was almost certainly to print when the error was sent out in the MFM. They're just going at their usual pace because (most likely) this is yet another case of GW underestimating just how depraved the competitive tournament community is when it comes to taking advantage of every possible broken thing and they didn't think it was all that urgent to day-1 FAQ it if it had already been FAQ'd in the MFM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 11:16:02
"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!"
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
The Razorflail combo is laughable, and needs stamping on; frankly the faction could have done without the stuff from BoR altogether.
The rest is perfectly fine, your self flagellation over the codex is baffling.
This friend. Though OP not surprising for someone with salt in their username I suppose.
Another thing to consider is that things like wyches, succubus, and incubi straddle a thin line between usable and unusable. How many editions has melee and these models in particular been rubbish? There are glaring things that need specific fixes. Everything else is just grown (I think?) people whining about new hotness. The sad thing is it’s these people who cry the loudest and contribute to getting things “nerfed”.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/26 11:41:20
As a DE player it does look like there are several things that are pushing them into broken rather than just very powerful. DT is the obvious one but the ease with which you can spam DL is also a problem, as is the stupid Succubus combo. There are likely several other things that are a little too powerful, like Incubi, but at the moment they're being overshadowed by the uber-broken stuff. I hope GW takes a measured approach to the fixes here. Some can likely be done with points but others will need errata, such as DT. Increasing the cost of Liquifiers would be the wrong way to fix them, for example.
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
DT as it stands would still be broken if overcharging an autohit weapon guaranteed you the mortal wounds. 1 single mortal wound (or D3 for a cronos, whatever) that you get a 5+ fnp against and that will almost never remove a liquifier from the squad is not a sufficient drawback to the absurd power of this trait.
Doubling the damage of a gak-ton of damage 1 ranged weapons is just never going to be sufficiently balanced, and I don't think GW realized quite how much upping the base strength of a liquifier to 4 and the cronos weapons to S5 would make the trait busted. You can fire a DT liquifier at a tank and wound on 4s to deal 2.5 damage on average - a more effective antitank gun than an unmodified Dark Lance.
Keeping it working as-is but removing the +1 damage and making it not All-Consuming is, IMO, the best fix. It puts it in line with all the other damage-boosting custom traits but makes it the 'high risk/high reward' option.
"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!"
As a DE player it does look like there are several things that are pushing them into broken rather than just very powerful. DT is the obvious one but the ease with which you can spam DL is also a problem, as is the stupid Succubus combo. There are likely several other things that are a little too powerful, like Incubi, but at the moment they're being overshadowed by the uber-broken stuff. I hope GW takes a measured approach to the fixes here. Some can likely be done with points but others will need errata, such as DT. Increasing the cost of Liquifiers would be the wrong way to fix them, for example.
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
DT as it stands would still be broken if overcharging an autohit weapon guaranteed you the mortal wounds. 1 single mortal wound (or D3 for a cronos, whatever) that you get a 5+ fnp against and that will almost never remove a liquifier from the squad is not a sufficient drawback to the absurd power of this trait.
Doubling the damage of a gak-ton of damage 1 ranged weapons is just never going to be sufficiently balanced, and I don't think GW realized quite how much upping the base strength of a liquifier to 4 and the cronos weapons to S5 would make the trait busted. You can fire a DT liquifier at a tank and wound on 4s to deal 2.5 damage on average - a more effective antitank gun than an unmodified Dark Lance.
Keeping it working as-is but removing the +1 damage and making it not All-Consuming is, IMO, the best fix. It puts it in line with all the other damage-boosting custom traits but makes it the 'high risk/high reward' option.
You are of course correct. I still have a grudge against DT because of PA.
I think that it would be nice if the nerf impacted Wracks spamming Liquifiers more than say Cronos, who could do with a bit of oomph.
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
The Razorflail combo is laughable, and needs stamping on; frankly the faction could have done without the stuff from BoR altogether.
The rest is perfectly fine, your self flagellation over the codex is baffling.
This friend. Though OP not surprising for someone with salt in their username I suppose.
Another thing to consider is that things like wyches, succubus, and incubi straddle a thin line between usable and unusable. How many editions has melee and these models in particular been rubbish? There are glaring things that need specific fixes. Everything else is just grown (I think?) people whining about new hotness. The sad thing is it’s these people who cry the loudest and contribute to getting things “nerfed”.
I agree, it's going to take seeing how they function in play over an extended period to be able to really judge. I have seen a few people waxing lyrical about the POWAH of Drazhar plus 10 Incubi, but the reality there is that it overkills whatever it attacks, and then gets shot to pieces.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 11:30:25
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
The Razorflail combo is laughable, and needs stamping on; frankly the faction could have done without the stuff from BoR altogether.
The rest is perfectly fine, your self flagellation over the codex is baffling.
This friend. Though OP not surprising for someone with salt in their username I suppose.
Another thing to consider is that things like wyches, succubus, and incubi straddle a thin line between usable and unusable. How many editions has melee and these models in particular been rubbish? There are glaring things that need specific fixes. Everything else is just grown (I think?) people whining about new hotness. The sad thing is it’s these people who cry the loudest and contribute to getting things “nerfed”.
Good to see we're having a reasonable conversation here with no sense of hyperbole. Apparently suggesting that Incubi and DL may be slightly undercosted is "self flagellation" and "whining". Both those things have been completely overshadowed by the obvious problems of DT and the blender Succubus but I think both probably need looking at more carefully, though not necessarily changed at this point. Incubi are probably borderline and there is definitely a danger they slip back into overcosted garbage again but they are really effective for only 16 points each. DL are probably OK in a world where the MM is as effective as it is but I think both could do with taking a little bit of a hit. In the case of the DL it's more down to the fact it's available on one of our two transports for very cheap and is clearly just a superior option to the Disintegrator. That's not exactly new for DE since GW always seem to trouble with the balance between those two weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/26 11:35:55
There have been a few comments from current playtesters that indicate the problem may be more with GW not listening than the quality of the playtesting. Chef, from Tabletop Tactics, for example, has heavily implied they brought up the issue of the Necron Doomsday Cannon being too unreliable at D6 shots, D6 damage but that was obviously ignored. There were similar reports way back during 7th edition WHFB when the Dark Elf army book was playtested and the designer of that book ignored the testers. That book was one of the most broken in that edition.
The biggest problem in game design is often a game designer's ego. You can point out all the big flaws in their plan, but they'll ignore it because they are the game designer and have a hard time admitting that they might have miscalculated.
There have been a few comments from current playtesters that indicate the problem may be more with GW not listening than the quality of the playtesting. Chef, from Tabletop Tactics, for example, has heavily implied they brought up the issue of the Necron Doomsday Cannon being too unreliable at D6 shots, D6 damage but that was obviously ignored. There were similar reports way back during 7th edition WHFB when the Dark Elf army book was playtested and the designer of that book ignored the testers. That book was one of the most broken in that edition.
The biggest problem in game design is often a game designer's ego. You can point out all the big flaws in their plan, but they'll ignore it because they are the game designer and have a hard time admitting that they might have miscalculated.
Absolutely. Receiving criticism is something not a lot of people are very good at. As a web designer part of my job involves watching people interact with sites I design. It's a humbling experience and initially it was very difficult to remove my ego from the process so I'd blame the users instead of properly using their feedback. That inability to receive and process criticism was apparently the biggest issue with the old Dark Elf army book for WHFB. It wouldn't surprise me if similar issues are still plaguing the design process and vague justifications like "flavour" or "style" get used to justify keeping bad decisions.
I feel like I've seen it a few times from different folks now (though that could be inaccurate), but the content from the BoR is not content that was cut or held back from dexes.
Quite simply, you could not put supplement material for one subfaction in a dex- you'd have to do it for ALL the subfactions in a dex in order for it to make sense.
AoR's could fit in a dex... Maybe. It would still be awkward, because some of them amount to a subfaction lock, but there are ways to build an AoR that allows units from all subfaction
DT has always been obnoxious, the the interaction with auto-hit Liquifiers needs a reasonable fix.
The Razorflail combo is laughable, and needs stamping on; frankly the faction could have done without the stuff from BoR altogether.
The rest is perfectly fine, your self flagellation over the codex is baffling.
This friend. Though OP not surprising for someone with salt in their username I suppose.
Another thing to consider is that things like wyches, succubus, and incubi straddle a thin line between usable and unusable. How many editions has melee and these models in particular been rubbish? There are glaring things that need specific fixes. Everything else is just grown (I think?) people whining about new hotness. The sad thing is it’s these people who cry the loudest and contribute to getting things “nerfed”.
Good to see we're having a reasonable conversation here with no sense of hyperbole. Apparently suggesting that Incubi and DL may be slightly undercosted is "self flagellation" and "whining". Both those things have been completely overshadowed by the obvious problems of DT and the blender Succubus but I think both probably need looking at more carefully, though not necessarily changed at this point. Incubi are probably borderline and there is definitely a danger they slip back into overcosted garbage again but they are really effective for only 16 points each. DL are probably OK in a world where the MM is as effective as it is but I think both could do with taking a little bit of a hit. In the case of the DL it's more down to the fact it's available on one of our two transports for very cheap and is clearly just a superior option to the Disintegrator. That's not exactly new for DE since GW always seem to trouble with the balance between those two weapons.
yeah, an Incubi could probably be like 18pts and you could probably bump the body of a raider up 5 and the cost of the dissie down 5.
The problem is, GW seems perfectly capable of doing subtle buffs, but not subtle nerfs, and I'm not really sure why. Probably because they're doing the "PR math" and they understand that people who hate a unit want to see it blasted into the stone age and unusable, while a large range of small buffs across an underpowered army is likely to make people go 'oh, that's nice' while being unlikely to create new meta boogey-men.
If they nerfed an OP unit to the point where it was simply a balanced, usable choice, the delusional powergamers who spammed it before would be just as unhappy as if it were actually underpowered and unusable and the people who wanted blood would not be sufficiently slaked by the thrill of a two hundred point nerf to the Castellan or the Wraithknight's guns becoming glorified lascannons or whatever.
PenitentJake wrote: I feel like I've seen it a few times from different folks now (though that could be inaccurate), but the content from the BoR is not content that was cut or held back from dexes.
Quite simply, you could not put supplement material for one subfaction in a dex- you'd have to do it for ALL the subfactions in a dex in order for it to make sense.
AoR's could fit in a dex... Maybe. It would still be awkward, because some of them amount to a subfaction lock, but there are ways to build an AoR that allows units from all subfaction
I agree singling out one subfaction for extra material in their own Codex would be a bit of an issue. I don't think singling out that subfaction in a completely separate book is any less of an issue, though. The end result is the same, except you now have rules spread across multiple books so GW can make more profit.
Things like AoR could go into the Codex but they could equally be released in one go through a supplement that applies to all armies. They could also not exist at all and I think most people wouldn't mind. One of GW's biggest problems is the ever-expanding number of rules they write. Eventually they break something because they can't keep up with their own release schedule. You can see the same thing with Formations in 7th. Everyone remembers the really broken ones but nobody mentions the much larger numbers of useless Formations that weren't worth jumping through all the hoops necessary to field them. The broken ones were so bad they made the game unplayable if you didn't have access to good ones of your own.
.
