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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The difference is IH was literally unbeatable for some armies that didn't have older edition problems like how GSC and Tau does now. The same can be said about Custodes, DG, Sisters against Tau and GSC also.

Who cares?

GW does a new edition roughly every three years, and even within an edition there's often a new wave of books / updates.

How long did the period last in 8th when "everyone had a Codex" and "nobody had a 2.0 / Psychic Awakening"? Like 6 weeks? Maybe 8 weeks?

Are we only looking for a "balanced game" for 6 weeks every 3 years?

If balance is a goal / ideal, balance of new books must be measured against older, weaker and dated books more than anything else. That is the benchmark that ultimately must be met. Just balancing a release against a sub-set of more recent books does nothing at all.

The problem right now is that

1) a lot of rules in the older, dated books just straight up do not function. Take my GSC for example

-1/2 of my cult trait (the cult my minis ae painted as anyway) is bikers moving and firing heavy weapons, a thing they do by default now
-the relic that I have painted up as a unique weapon in my army is a sniper rifle that gets +2 to wound, which is +1 to wound in 9th
-I still don't have cult traits on my vehicles
-the signature ability every unit in my faction pays through the nose for can be purchased for 1cp by any unit in the game now

2) all the units in the older dated books are still playing with the points values set by a chimpanzee flinging gak in early 2020

aberrants at 35ppm and purestrains at 17ppm was fething comedy the instant it was released, Eldar is still playing with 10 point glorified fething guardsmen as their core troops that a primaris marine can get 100% points return in one shooting phase against,nids are still using fething index 8th rules almost totally unchanged for all their pillow-fisted monsters, and chaos space marines are W1 for the forseeable future.

Every army except space marines has been totally abandoned for fething two years. The second army whose pants dont go clank for the emperor gets their damn book, and all the marine players lose their mind and cry foul that EVERYTHING needs to stop, and we need nerfs to EVERYTHING in the army to bring them in line with Tyranids and Tau and Guard and GSC and Eldar in their current state? feth off.

If marine 2.0 content isn't going away, then every army in the game needs to be buffed UP to at least that power level. If Drukhari are Op compared to that, fine, nerf them down to be on par with new marines.

The errata is now published, its basically empty.

Okey but for every GSC or Tau, you have old book Harlequins or Custodes or Demons and those work more then fine. It does not look as if GW planned to make non 9th ed books armies bad on purpose. Rather we are seeing the usual GW random rules writing in full effect.

And saying that for 2 years all non marine armies in 8th ed were left without updates seems, like a big stretch. Specially when marines were not even the dominant lists till 2.0 came out.

It's okay guys, now that Master Nemesine has been nerfed Drukhari will be fair. /s

Karol wrote:
Okey but for every GSC or Tau, you have old book Harlequins or Custodes or Demons and those work more then fine. It does not look as if GW planned to make non 9th ed books armies bad on purpose. Rather we are seeing the usual GW random rules writing in full effect.

And saying that for 2 years all non marine armies in 8th ed were left without updates seems, like a big stretch. Specially when marines were not even the dominant lists till 2.0 came out.

^all those codexes only work fine because of content that came out after their codex.

If you actually try to play Custodes with just the content of the book, or non-Slaanesh daemons, or Harlequins without PA content, they're all about in the same boat as GSC/Tau/Guard/Eldar/etc

How are tyranid lists winning atm?

with units from the new FW index

How are guard lists showing up at top tables?

new units from the FW index

Daemons?

newer slaanesh units that came out post-codex, using strat bonuses from PA

Admech?

spamming the new flyers, the new cavalry

Orks?

Oh thats weird its always Ghazghkull, when'd his rules come out?

Eldar, if you see them?

Spamming Spiritseers from the new FW index

Tau, if you see them?

the wildly different FSE content from PA.

between the new FW index and PA, SOME outdated armies have the tools to hack it against post-2.0 marines. if the FW index hadnt come out and tossed a smattering of 'balanced with 9th in mind' decent units to a ton of different armies, you would not be seeing eldar or guard or nids at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
It's okay guys, now that Master Nemesine has been nerfed Drukhari will be fair. /s

Yeah, absolutely the dumbest FAQ I've ever seen. Time to just apply nerfs to my own army and pretend various units work differently.

Hahaha there were even less changes than I expected. Great restraint by the devs to let the book and meta breathe for a while, especially with a moratorium on new releases. People are just gonna have to take a chill pill and adapt. Not the end of the world. This doesn’t mean there won’t be further adjustments.

 vict0988 wrote:
It's okay guys, now that Master Nemesine has been nerfed Drukhari will be fair. /s

You mean fixed? It didn't work on poison weapons as they are Unmod hits.

Well that was the size FAQ I was expecting. At least they got Reavers. Next few weeks should be telling.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well that was the size FAQ I was expecting. At least they got Reavers. Next few weeks should be telling.

THEY fethed UP REAVERS AGAIN SOMEHOW

they got rid of the point cost for Heat Lances. they couldnt manage to keep track of the TWO different gun upgrades you can take on one xenos unit. A+. incredible job.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well that was the size FAQ I was expecting. At least they got Reavers. Next few weeks should be telling.

THEY fethed UP REAVERS AGAIN SOMEHOW

they got rid of the point cost for Heat Lances. they couldnt manage to keep track of the TWO different gun upgrades you can take on one xenos unit. A+. incredible job.

The important thing is that they stated that Grav Talons and Caltrops are 5 points......just like it is in the codex

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well that was the size FAQ I was expecting. At least they got Reavers. Next few weeks should be telling.

THEY fethed UP REAVERS AGAIN SOMEHOW

they got rid of the point cost for Heat Lances. they couldnt manage to keep track of the TWO different gun upgrades you can take on one xenos unit. A+. incredible job.

lol feth me

JFC. What is up with their FAQ people.

Edit: wait, now--they just say change the following -- that's not a new datasheet in the FAQ. Whatever heat lance value is in the book still applies.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Marin wrote:

Hmmm, you are ignoring the fact that Covid stopped most tournaments, so there is not real data. It`s true harlequins started
super strong the edition, but as time progressed the opponent learning how to play vs them they fall back immensely..

Harlequins did not fall back in the slightest. See graphic above. They retained the exact same win rates in the mid 60-ish% consistently for over 6 months now.

And sure, real tournaments were rare, but also on places like TTS, people have also been used to play in tournaments with 60-70% of the field playing Harlequins/Sisters at times (which, even though it's obviously a different environment, people like Brad Chester, etc.. have been practicing).

Again. People know the style. People know it's the most powerful "archetype" of army in 40K atm. Has been for months. People know how to play against that style of army.

Drukhari win-percentage has nothing to do with "people not being prepared" (at the top tables). Drukhari win-rate is purely their efficiency at doing the thing the best armies in 40K 9th have already been doing (and players also knowing how to play that style of army if they played Sisters/Harlequins and switched, such as Brad Chester, Nick Nanavati, etc.. .. i.e. not needing to change play-style, simply having more units that do the same thing even better).

I love TTS, but it`s not real Warhammer.
Your graft is not showing why the harlequins are not covnerting their WR with top 3 finishes ?
In video games there is alot of times certain faction/hero have very good WR, because its played by dedicated players, but its considered second tier and factions/heroes that have balanced WR but are considered OP. I would be more worried by faction that have more top 3 finishes than faction that have good WR, but win on top level. Popular OP heroes have often worst WR, because they are played by more people and bad players drop the WR. IF you nerf hero, because its overpowered in silver, that hero will be unplayable in master/diamond.

That is the reason in games there are alot more metric monitored, before something receive buff/nerf and the reason your graph is just good start, but not real reason to do anything.

The real Drukhari errata/FAW will be the Charandon supplement one.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It's okay guys, now that Master Nemesine has been nerfed Drukhari will be fair. /s

You mean fixed? It didn't work on poison weapons as they are Unmod hits.

I didn't know poison was unmodified, that's dumb.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It's okay guys, now that Master Nemesine has been nerfed Drukhari will be fair. /s

You mean fixed? It didn't work on poison weapons as they are Unmod hits.

I didn't know poison was unmodified, that's dumb.

Yeah, its kind of a odd choice to make them unmods.
Edit: PT had to be worded to say on a 3+ instead of a 4+ or something b.c of it.

Marin 797783 11111768 wrote:
I love TTS, but it`s not real Warhammer.
Your graft is not showing why the harlequins are not covnerting their WR with top 3 finishes ?
In video games there is alot of times certain faction/hero have very good WR, because its played by dedicated players, but its considered second tier and factions/heroes that have balanced WR but are considered OP. I would be more worried by faction that have more top 3 finishes than faction that have good WR, but win on top level. Popular OP heroes have often worst WR, because they are played by more people and bad players drop the WR. IF you nerf hero, because its overpowered in silver, that hero will be unplayable in master/diamond.

That is the reason in games there are alot more metric monitored, before something receive buff/nerf and the reason your graph is just good start, but not real reason to do anything.

Where were those players that have so much expiriance and such good skills in 8th ed? Somehow those skills didn't translate in to having so many wins and top finishs, specially for DE run as DE. And having 3 of the same in top 4 on a regular basis would mean there is very little sense in playing something else in tournament setting, and little sense in starting to play in a non tournament one, unless you play some very specific hard counter.

FAQ is up

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/4Tc2U2f19rzoqerz.pdf

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The real Drukhari errata/FAW will be the Charandon supplement one.

Oh yea good point. Though DT still remains a mental terror.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The real Drukhari errata/FAW will be the Charandon supplement one.

Oh yea good point. Though DT still remains a mental terror.

Yeah, guess we'll just have to fix that later by making liquifiers 20pts and nerfing fething Cronos Pain Engines and feth anyone who's not using that one particular custom subfaction trait that makes them broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
JFC. What is up with their FAQ people.

Edit: wait, now--they just say change the following -- that's not a new datasheet in the FAQ. Whatever heat lance value is in the book still applies.

Ok...I mean obviously that's how im gonna play it, but you could not choose a more idiotic way to do that if that's whats intended as possible.

"im gonna change the base model cost, and then list out the exact same costs for all the upgrades but one, and trust that everyone just assumes that that other one also doesn't change from the codex. Ahuuuurrrrr deeduuuuurrrrrrrr"

 the_scotsman wrote:


Yeah, guess we'll just have to fix that later by making liquifiers 20pts and nerfing fething Cronos Pain Engines and feth anyone who's not using that one particular custom subfaction trait that makes them broken.

I think the DT element in most lists might be manageable, but I guess we'll find out.

Ok...I mean obviously that's how im gonna play it, but you could not choose a more idiotic way to do that if that's whats intended as possible.

"im gonna change the base model cost, and then list out the exact same costs for all the upgrades but one, and trust that everyone just assumes that that other one also doesn't change from the codex. Ahuuuurrrrr deeduuuuurrrrrrrr"

They also changed caltrops and talons to the same price.

They didn't even fixed the succubus razorflail interactions.

Wow.

Guess they don’t consider it borked.

 Galas wrote:
They didn't even fixed the succubus razorflail interactions.

Wow.

That would be in the Charadon FAQ if it is indeed warranted wouldn't it?

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well that was the size FAQ I was expecting. At least they got Reavers. Next few weeks should be telling.

THEY fethed UP REAVERS AGAIN SOMEHOW

they got rid of the point cost for Heat Lances. they couldnt manage to keep track of the TWO different gun upgrades you can take on one xenos unit. A+. incredible job.

inb4 - its hard for multi billion dollar companies to do things even simple things. I remember in second grade I had to correct a class mates work and turn it in for an assignment. Any errors you missed were points off...

Like...GW would be failing second grade right now. It is so effing pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
They didn't even fixed the succubus razorflail interactions.

Wow.

That would be in the Charadon FAQ if it is indeed warranted wouldn't it?

They could fix it on the razor fail too. They could just say on the razor flail that the bonus attacks it gives can't generate additional attacks or something. Or call out the specific interact...in the FAQ and say how it works.

It would be ideal to nerf the pronlematic interaction only, rather than also nerfing stuff like the Blood Dancer trait, the bonus on a 6 custom trait, etc.

 Galas wrote:
They didn't even fixed the succubus razorflail interactions.

Wow.

I'd expect that in the book of rust FAQ, which should be due next week?

I did not expect anything else.

The heat lance is GW a classic. If they left out all the other options that don't change point costs, then one could at least logically argue for them staying the same. But no, GW could not have an errata, that says reavers=20pts. Let us enter the short or long age of heat lance spam

Karol wrote:
I did not expect anything else.

The heat lance is GW a classic. If they left out all the other options that don't change point costs, then one could at least logically argue for them staying the same. But no, GW could not have an errata, that says reavers=20pts. Let us enter the short or long age of heat lance spam

Heat lances have still their base cost, they weren't changed by this FAQ.

It doesn't say 'replace the whole entry' just 'change the following.' Heat Lances are unchanged.

For an initial FAQ there's nothing very surprising here. Obviously the book needs more tweaks and fixes but that isn't what these initial FAQ's are for; the bigger changes come in the big FAQ's.