Switch Theme:

Drukhari are OP, what next?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 whembly wrote:
Do we know for sure the game designers don't really playtest this?

I mean, I work in IT and with just simple spreadsheets I can build scenarios to test unit by units. Assuming attacker is in range of defender, how much damage based on avg dice rolls would the defender incurs?

I'd try to make it as general agnostic as possible and just test the RULES.

IE, take a DT wrack liquifier unit and compare to SoB troop unit. Just shooting at 18" and work out the SoB saves when the wracks shoots first.

Then, take a DL Raider + DT wrack liquifier unit and compare to SoB troops unit and work out the avg results.

Basically take every combination and permutations at unit-by-unit with unit/army rules interaction and obvious combos (ie, wracks in raiders)..

No scenery.

No Strategems.

Nothing that is really a GENERAL driven activity. Just the facts ma'am to compare the units.

What this'll do is create a baseline set of data to ascertain if the new rules/interacts is something they intended. And it wouldn't take someone untold hours to playtest to weed these things out.


What you're describing is basically very rudimentary statistical analysis- and the answer is no, GW doesn't do this. Think about things like Battle Cannons vs Vanquishers, where if you have a high school math education you can work out that the ostensibly anti-tank weapon is massively outclassed by the generalist gun in about thirty seconds.

Their designers have always been terrible at stats and probability; it's the sort of design issue that you can catch with playtesting given enough iterations, but when there's just so much content to review things are bound to slip through. Designers with an understanding of stats will establish ground rules for the relationships between units (eg anti-tank units should be around three times better at anti-tank than comparable anti-infantry units), and then playtesting reveals needed tweaks, unintended consequences, or unclear interactions; but generally speaking things will function like they should. Instead we get units that can't perform their intended role at all, or are better at ones they weren't intended for, or have damage output far too low or too high for what they're supposed to do.

I'd love to see a more stats-focused approach to design but it doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 addnid wrote:

That is gold man thanks ! Perhaps all this was done for DE and then they changed stuff to give it more spice ? « This Drukari codex is balanced but boring, let’s give it more special sauce » and that is how things went wrong ?
Else the dude is just plain lying, which is totally possible, or at the least Highly Exaggerating


Or perhaps things are more balanced than you all think because you just aren't privy to the details of what's coming throughout the year....
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




ccs wrote:
 addnid wrote:

That is gold man thanks ! Perhaps all this was done for DE and then they changed stuff to give it more spice ? « This Drukari codex is balanced but boring, let’s give it more special sauce » and that is how things went wrong ?
Else the dude is just plain lying, which is totally possible, or at the least Highly Exaggerating


Or perhaps things are more balanced than you all think because you just aren't privy to the details of what's coming throughout the year....


Throwing unbalance on top of unbalance doesn't balance things. We don't need to Wait And See (TM) to know that the DE codex is not balanced with the codexes that have been released so far; if future codexes are also similarly overpowered, that doesn't create a balanced environment, it just further perpetuates the disparities that already exist.
   
Made in us
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice






 vict0988 wrote:
 Red Corsair wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 harlokin wrote:
I really don't get all the hopping on the Drukhari bandwagon. Rules are great right now (and will likely get gutted in a GW overreaction), but who the feth cares, are the rules that much of a motivating factor for people?

Yes, some people just want to win, other people just don't want to lose.



Google has 500 million search results on trying to win vs trying not to lose but I'm sure the distinction isn't worth noting, stay ignorant internet-dude.


OK proxy hammer dude!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
ccs wrote:
 addnid wrote:

That is gold man thanks ! Perhaps all this was done for DE and then they changed stuff to give it more spice ? « This Drukari codex is balanced but boring, let’s give it more special sauce » and that is how things went wrong ?
Else the dude is just plain lying, which is totally possible, or at the least Highly Exaggerating


Or perhaps things are more balanced than you all think because you just aren't privy to the details of what's coming throughout the year....


Throwing unbalance on top of unbalance doesn't balance things. We don't need to Wait And See (TM) to know that the DE codex is not balanced with the codexes that have been released so far; if future codexes are also similarly overpowered, that doesn't create a balanced environment, it just further perpetuates the disparities that already exist.


I disagree for three reasons.

1.) GW has a vision for how each edition plays, when a new edition comes if the old codexes are valid- they are what GW thought would be good for that edition. If a new edition has a different vision for how armies should play the game, the codexes as they come out should each be unbalanced in terms of being better in that current edition than codexes from the prior edition. In order to move into a new edition GW has to throw unbalance ontop of unbalance.

2.) The players have some agency in this issue. Meta matters, in every edition in competitive play most of the top table players were anti-meta armies. One of the few notable exceptions was the end of 8th and space marines which were meta, and still were so good that they could outplay most of the meta armies, or possibly so many people were playing space marines that anti meta armies were a non factor. That aside, every 9th codex that has come out has counters for the drukhari- that you cannot built an army that is the optimal build for every come, as a opposed to an army which has some middle of the road abilities to allow it to cover more fronts is a player issue. 9th is not an alpha strike edition, and people keep playing it like it is. Strategic reserves and various other rules exist for reasons. Things that shoot out of line of sight went up in cost for reasons, that no one takes them because they are not optimal for how play began at the end of 8th and the start of 9th is a player issue not a GW rules issue. Most of the 9th codexes are likely done by now, GW has worked towards internal balance based on the core rules for most of the codexes and we have not seen that result yet. Most players will likely assume the result was bad, but that is neither here nor there

3.) Having unbalance is grimdark for the players in a social way. There are a lot of people who honestly engage in the hobby in a salty way, whenever there is unbalance in the game it is a strange point of comraderie among the players. Although all logic should point to it being bad for the game and hobby, as long as it is not over the top(6th/7th edition formations and ally system) it appears to be good for the game and the hobby in the sense that it causes engagement and discussion between players, armchair players, and bored indivuduals that have a fleeting interest in this hobby.

side point- book of rust succubus should not be able to generate bonus attacks off of bonus attacks.

   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






yukishiro1 wrote:
Brandt's... I'm not sure he's someone to really defer to on whether GW's internal balance process works.

It does not have the desired effect, the question is whether it is true. Perhabs they have too many rounds of testing and TTT were involved too early. The question is whether d3+3 got playtested by anyone. Someone in the Drukhari tactics thread analyzed Wrack melee options and those are also a mess. Brandt might just be full of gak, that's where things are pointing.
blaktoof wrote:
side point- book of rust succubus should not be able to generate bonus attacks off of bonus attacks.

It creates camaraderie between Necrons and SM when she one-shots Guilliman or a Monolith, working as intended. /s
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 vict0988 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Brandt's... I'm not sure he's someone to really defer to on whether GW's internal balance process works.

It does not have the desired effect, the question is whether it is true. Perhabs they have too many rounds of testing and TTT were involved too early. The question is whether d3+3 got playtested by anyone. Someone in the Drukhari tactics thread analyzed Wrack melee options and those are also a mess. Brandt might just be full of gak, that's where things are pointing.
blaktoof wrote:
side point- book of rust succubus should not be able to generate bonus attacks off of bonus attacks.

It creates camaraderie between Necrons and SM when she one-shots Guilliman or a Monolith, working as intended. /s


I look forward to the game where a succubus chooses to go after my Monolith.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I feel pure mathhammer is the best way to pick out obvious imbalances in units at the list building stage. I.E. an hour with an excel spreadsheet can usually very quickly identify units across a codex that are just "better" (faster, stronger, tougher) than other comparable choices for the points. It won't tell you how that faction plays on the table necesarilly - but it will usually explain why people take unit X rather than unit Y. Or weapon option X over weapon option Y etc.

To be fair though, some problems can't be fixed. For instance there are 6 Wrack Weapons. Its very hard to think of 6 identifiable stat lines you'd want to hit such that each weapon has a niche - especially if 4 of them are to be poisoned weapons. It is objectively stupid/imbalanced for instance that Scissorhands lets you make 5 poisoned 4+ AP-2 attacks for 10 points, while an EC whip lets you make 6 poisoned 4+ AP-2 attacks for 5 points. But even if Scissorhands was 5 points the EC whip would still be strictly superior. In a similar way even if the venom blade was AP-2 rather than AP-1, its obvious that 6*4+=3, while 3*2+=2.5. So the EC whip would again be superior (and with the point of AP, even more so.)

But this is potentially only an issue if you want things balanced to perfection. Arguably you can say if you want your Wrack leader armed with a poison blade or a mindphase gauntlet etc, that's a fluffy choice for more casual/narrative players. So long as its not *that bad* it doesn't matter. And in truth, its not like competitive players are taking EC whips even if they appear the best choice, because realistically you don't want your wracks in combat, you want them abusing DT liquifiers from inside transports. So you might as well save the points entirely.

A similar unit might be Tyranid Warriors. You have 4 melee options and 3 ranged options (5 including the heavier choices). Realistically though I feel none of these are so different as to meaningfully change how the unit works - beyond ditching guns entirely - so it inevitably turns into number crunching. Whether a scything claws/devourer warrior is worth 2 points less than a scything claws/deathspitter warrior is after all a mathematical question.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Tyel wrote:
an hour with an excel spreadsheet can usually very quickly identify units across a codex that are just "better"...

Nah, it takes way longer than that.
Whether a scything claws/devourer warrior is worth 2 points less than a scything claws/deathspitter warrior is after all a mathematical question.

Only in the sense that everything is a mathematical question. If one weapon is S5 and the other is S4 and they cost the same S5 is superior, if S5 costs 100 points per model then S4 is always superior, but even if S4 v S5 is a relatively small difference then there are points levels at which one is better against T3 and the other is better against T5. Even if in competitive events S4 is all you need because of the meta, Timmy can still enjoy his S5 because it is still good in some matchups and maybe that's the matchup he plays the most is one of those.

Ideally, this overlaps with the fluff, so if Timmy faces Ork hordes a lot he can go and read the fluff of his weapons and read that the S4 gun is supposed to be good against them so he puts S4 guns on all his dudes and GW can ensure through stats and points that those S4 guns are actually better against Orks than the S5 guns which are better against T5 and T8 units. Right now you basically need to do the math yourself to find out which weapon is right for each situation. You might imagine that AP-1 D2 heavy bolters is overkill on Orks and that the blast on missile launchers will blow Ork hordes away, but GW hasn't done the math so Timmy has to do it on his own.

There is also the question of when a unit becomes a glass cannon or a tank, if your unit gets destroyed turn 1 every game then there isn't much point in giving them the best guns unless the upgrade cost is low enough that you only need to shoot 0,5 or 1 time per game to recoup the cost.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 09:29:22


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




ccs 797783 11122649 wrote:

Or perhaps things are more balanced than you all think because you just aren't privy to the details of what's coming throughout the year....


I don't know if it is very fun to hear that, DE won't be a problem as long as you play this or that faction that comes out after it. Because what it does in the end , it just drives the DE win rates a bit lower, and for everyone else there is now 2 ,or 3 if one counts harlequins as above avarge, that dunk on them. And it gets even worse for faction that were bad since 9th started. A GSC playing hearing that he just waited a year, for DE to arrive, and now he gets to wait another 6months to a year, so maybe other armies get better vs DE, is not a encourging thing to be told about.



1.) GW has a vision for how each edition plays, when a new edition comes if the old codexes are valid- they are what GW thought would be good for that edition. If a new edition has a different vision for how armies should play the game, the codexes as they come out should each be unbalanced in terms of being better in that current edition than codexes from the prior edition. In order to move into a new edition GW has to throw unbalance ontop of unbalance

This doesn't explain how GW is able and willing to write new books for the current edition. Specially if they stay bad for its entire run, and then are still bad in the next edition. Unless we assume that GW plays the really long game and their plans for a bad faction, are to keep it bad for 3-4 editions to later make it good, for what ever reason. Plus if it was to be true, it would be really bad expiriance for all the people that played durning those 3-4 bad editions, but never got to play in the good one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Pure mathhammer is an absolutely terrible way to discern balance, because that is not how the game works on the table.

But is always the case? If we look at a succbubs that avarges around 30+ attacks per round of fighting, then I think that even with pure math hammer we can say that something is wrong.

Same way we don't have to do a lot of testing, if we see a unit balanced around the idea of high damage, but weak to incoming damge, and then see the balanced broken, because the unit is put in to a cheap open topped, and powerful on itself, transport. With added cross cabal synergies etc. How many games does one have to playtesst to know that 6 raiders and stuff like DT liquifires is too good. And that is before one adds stuff, like the practical removal of LoS shoting and adding a ton of LoS blocking to the game, having a super high synergy with flying transports. Or the always present goes first has a higher chance of winning.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/13 10:55:34


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





It is clear that we don't have the full picture and that the dexes were indeed meant for a scenario where all factions are updated to 9th.

Just look at the effects the DE had on the meta. Sure, they are winning left and right because they need some adjustments, but try looking past that.
The game benefitted immensely from the DE dex. It crated a better balance between the other factions and many builds that were bad in a meta with only heavy targets, are now being used even at competitive levels.

Weirdly, the presence of a huge contender like that has increased the spectrum of competitive builds and factions.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Well that is, forgive my language, shity way to design a game. If you have 3 years of an edition, and the design team gets to enjoy playing it for that time, but your codex gets somewhat updated 3-4 months before edition ends, then your expiriance and that of designers or playtesters is going to be drasticly different. And may I say very unfun.


DE created no new balance. The game was already balanced with most armies, aside for harlequins, having similar win rates. DE beat everything, they don't just beat one or two armies. And most of the armies that exist don't have a way to adapt to them. The whole adapt to new +70% win rate army thing doesn't work anyway. People tried to adapt to Inari, or the castellan soup armies, or the end 2.0 marines. And how did it end? The armies were winning anyway. The mid tier stuff got worse, in some cases, like vehicles that weren't flyers had them invalideted for large chunks of an edition, and the under avarge armies got dunked on really hard, because to face off against the top tier lists everyone had to buy in to A game models, making the chance of a less powerful army being spoted to play against even lower then normal.

So no the spectrum of competitive builds or factions did not go up.


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think that you didn't read what I wrote, or at the very least didn't understand what I meant.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 vict0988 wrote:

It creates camaraderie between Necrons and SM when she one-shots Guilliman or a Monolith, working as intended. /s


Oh come the feth on.

She does 4 wounds to a monolith. Then it fething eats her instantaneously with its 6 autohitting damage 3 melee attacks, and heals 1 of those 4 wounds on its next turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
Well that is, forgive my language, shity way to design a game. If you have 3 years of an edition, and the design team gets to enjoy playing it for that time, but your codex gets somewhat updated 3-4 months before edition ends, then your expiriance and that of designers or playtesters is going to be drasticly different. And may I say very unfun.


DE created no new balance. The game was already balanced with most armies, aside for harlequins, having similar win rates. DE beat everything, they don't just beat one or two armies. And most of the armies that exist don't have a way to adapt to them. The whole adapt to new +70% win rate army thing doesn't work anyway. People tried to adapt to Inari, or the castellan soup armies, or the end 2.0 marines. And how did it end? The armies were winning anyway. The mid tier stuff got worse, in some cases, like vehicles that weren't flyers had them invalideted for large chunks of an edition, and the under avarge armies got dunked on really hard, because to face off against the top tier lists everyone had to buy in to A game models, making the chance of a less powerful army being spoted to play against even lower then normal.

So no the spectrum of competitive builds or factions did not go up.



Uh huh believe me it sucked ASS in 8th - at least in 9th the only thing you're fighting against with an 8th army vs a 9th army is the dumb little army-wide whatever rule they get for not having allies. In 8th it was fething ALL STRATAGEMS, ALL RELICS, warlord traits from the BRB vs good warlord traits, half the psychic powers and gakky broken index datasheets.

It sucked ass, i got to have fun with my GSC for all of 3 months before they got put into the dumpster and space marine 2.0 broke the game for a year and a half.

Of course many factions are still using those gakky broken index datasheets with no or few changes, but hey, pobodys nerfect, can't fix gak like every nid monster being dumb as feth for 5 years gotta put out 3 space marine codexes and 12 supplements!



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 11:33:39


"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!"  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




So let me get is straight, people should be happy, because GW could have and did worse stuff in the past? How does that even matter, specially for people who started playing in 9th.

Because it feels a lot like people telling me that I should not want GK to be good, because in 5th, they were too OP,even by todays standards having an under 60% win rate seem laughably low for a broken army.


Also many factions are using bad books from 8th, but others use the same book from 8th, but are doing great. The custodes, harlequins, orks or SoB were not considered top tier armies under 8th ed rule set. Neither were demons, yet in 9th they very much are.


And I ain't going to comment on the space marine stuff. In 9th, aside for the short time salamander rise up, most marine armies were around 50% win rate or lower. The supposed broken DA are sitting at just above 50%, and I have my doubts if they are going to rise up any higher after DE came out.
Freaking eldar soups seem to be doing better then majority of marine armies, as top 16 and higher placment goes. But who knows maybe this is just some wierd US and Poland only thing, and all across the world marines are dominating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
I think that you didn't read what I wrote, or at the very least didn't understand what I meant.


No I do not understand what you mean by what you wrote. If someone at the end of 8th suggested, that the fact that finaly mono sm armies are going to open up the meta, and that we have to look past how good 2.0 IH are, because with adjustment and people learning how to play against them, there are going to be more armies played, they would be lynched on this forum.

An army which has no bad sides, has a positive above 50% win rate against EVERY army existing in the game right now, does not promote new lists. It just lowers the win rates of the entire field and that is all.

Plus I don't know what you understand as balance. The fact that a mid tier DE piloted army has a positive chance to table or at least bring to any marine army to unable to win level, by turn two, after no turn 1 interaction, somehow brings balance. Also no one is going to shift to hard DE counter(if they existed), if those counters also doesn't beat the most popular and most played type of army in the game, which is marines. The fact that in 8th there were armies who could outswarm and hard counter castellan lists, didn't mean that somehow the playfield got better or more diverse, because the same armies were losing hard to Inari and Eldar, and couldn't deal with tau. Ah and this is for tournaments only. Where we assume people do try to play the most optimised lists. Outside of tournaments, even if it were somehow true, it changes nothing. Because telling someone, that their 30% win rate army is going to stay bad or get even worse with DE around, but a different army in a few months will come out and will beat DE, doesn't help to make the game more fun or balanced. Specially if the new army beats the DE and the entire field. Same way the fact that that DE beat the best up till now Harlis, doesn't balance the game at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 13:28:21


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The idea we need to wait and see before judging what is currently OP is ridiculous. We've had SM, Necrons, DG and DE Codexes so far, with a bunch of SM supplements as well. It's not exactly controversial at this point to say DE are by far the best of those books. Sure, minor shifts in the meta as the result of other books coming out may shift the balance slightly, but if BA are getting stomped by DE now they'll still be getting stomped by them in a couple of months because the problem isn't adjusting to the meta, it's that DE are broken.

The playtesting discussion is interesting. While it's true that testing is a professional skill it's also true that you don't need that many people with those skills to effectively test. The main skills you need are gathering the right data and interpreting that data effectively, along with the ability to remove bias from the process. The latter point is learned behaviour but also something that you can guard against by not having the designers run the testing. The first two skills don't require a large number of people and in many cases only need 1. Once you have these things in place you need a pool of testers. These people do not need to be professional testers. In the case of 40k they just need to know the rules well enough to play the game. The idea that this process is somehow too complex for GW is absurd.

Another problem GW has, is that it has no effective templating or game direction. 40k doesn't really seem to have a set of underlying design paradigms like every other game on the planet. To take a fairly recent example of a redesigned game, when FFG did the second edition of X-Wing they clearly had certain design rules they followed: no more than one bonus attack per ship; no unconditional free mods, for example. These aren't things that are explicitly pointed out to players but if you pay attention you notice them. GW are infamous for mid-edition changes of direction such as the change to how re-rolls worked halfway through 8th with newer re-roll auras allowing re-rolling all hits rather than just failed hits, or the sudden inclusion of formations in 7th. The lack of Universal Special Rules is another good example. Because they have no proper design direction they don't have even the most basic of protections against making things overpowered. Most of these kind of restrictions are applied because the designers are aware they are problematic so they come up with a basic rule to prevent them straying into that territory when they create new units. Then you have simple cases of just not doing even the most basic checking, like with the Battlecannon/Vanquisher example above.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






....We need to wait and see because that's all we can do.

What can we do at this point? Multiple large social media influencers have called for and suggested nerfs, 95% of people in this thread are calling for and suggesting nerfs, but none of us is James Q Workshop, sole proprietor of warhammer tm 40 tm 000 tm.

We have to see what James does.

"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!"  
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Slipspace wrote:
We've had SM, Necrons, DG and DE Codexes so far, with a bunch of SM supplements as well. It's not exactly controversial at this point to say DE are by far the best of those books. Sure, minor shifts in the meta as the result of other books coming out may shift the balance slightly, but if BA are getting stomped by DE now they'll still be getting stomped by them in a couple of months because the problem isn't adjusting to the meta, it's that DE are broken.


It's not controversial, it's simply wrong. SM and DG are definitely not very far from drukhari.

I'd also like to see those BA lists that are getting stomped by drukhari, are they still tailored against other SM/custodes/other heavy elite oriented armies? Do you really think that knowing in advance that the game is drukhari vs BA and with all the combinations available for both players (like in a simulator) there's no competition between the two factions?

 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
I think that you didn't read what I wrote, or at the very least didn't understand what I meant.


No I do not understand what you mean by what you wrote. If someone at the end of 8th suggested, that the fact that finaly mono sm armies are going to open up the meta, and that we have to look past how good 2.0 IH are, because with adjustment and people learning how to play against them, there are going to be more armies played, they would be lynched on this forum.

An army which has no bad sides, has a positive above 50% win rate against EVERY army existing in the game right now, does not promote new lists. It just lowers the win rates of the entire field and that is all.

Plus I don't know what you understand as balance. The fact that a mid tier DE piloted army has a positive chance to table or at least bring to any marine army to unable to win level, by turn two, after no turn 1 interaction, somehow brings balance. Also no one is going to shift to hard DE counter(if they existed), if those counters also doesn't beat the most popular and most played type of army in the game, which is marines. The fact that in 8th there were armies who could outswarm and hard counter castellan lists, didn't mean that somehow the playfield got better or more diverse, because the same armies were losing hard to Inari and Eldar, and couldn't deal with tau. Ah and this is for tournaments only. Where we assume people do try to play the most optimised lists. Outside of tournaments, even if it were somehow true, it changes nothing. Because telling someone, that their 30% win rate army is going to stay bad or get even worse with DE around, but a different army in a few months will come out and will beat DE, doesn't help to make the game more fun or balanced. Specially if the new army beats the DE and the entire field. Same way the fact that that DE beat the best up till now Harlis, doesn't balance the game at all.


Ok, I'll try to express in few lines why I'm very confused by your answer.

Me: "Drukhari are clearly OP, but if you look past their numbers, you can see that the variance of lists and factions on the competitive scene has increased."

You: "False, Drukhari are clearly OP."

Me:
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:
....We need to wait and see because that's all we can do.

What can we do at this point? Multiple large social media influencers have called for and suggested nerfs, 95% of people in this thread are calling for and suggesting nerfs, but none of us is James Q Workshop, sole proprietor of warhammer tm 40 tm 000 tm.

We have to see what James does.


That's not the point I was making or responding to. The specific point I was refuting is the idea that everything will be fine once all the Codexes are out. That just doesn't match up with reality or experience of how GW operates so it's a foolish hope to hang your hat on. There is no master plan here where all will become clear once we have the full picture. It's just the usual GW inability to balance their game.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 Blackie wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
We've had SM, Necrons, DG and DE Codexes so far, with a bunch of SM supplements as well. It's not exactly controversial at this point to say DE are by far the best of those books. Sure, minor shifts in the meta as the result of other books coming out may shift the balance slightly, but if BA are getting stomped by DE now they'll still be getting stomped by them in a couple of months because the problem isn't adjusting to the meta, it's that DE are broken.


It's not controversial, it's simply wrong. SM and DG are definitely not very far from drukhari.

I'd also like to see those BA lists that are getting stomped by drukhari, are they still tailored against other SM/custodes/other heavy elite oriented armies? Do you really think that knowing in advance that the game is drukhari vs BA and with all the combinations available for both players (like in a simulator) there's no competition between the two factions?

Why would playing in a simulator grant increased foreknowledge of what faction your opponent is bringing? I have experience playing both in real life and in a simulator and it strikes me that I knew down to 1-2 armies what people were bringing IRL and had no idea what I was playing in simulated games.

If you want to prove that BA losing against Drukhari is list dependent then that is your hypothesis to prove. BA losing to Drukhari is a fact.
   
Made in us
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

Slipspace wrote:
That's not the point I was making or responding to. The specific point I was refuting is the idea that everything will be fine once all the Codexes are out. That just doesn't match up with reality or experience of how GW operates so it's a foolish hope to hang your hat on. There is no master plan here where all will become clear once we have the full picture. It's just the usual GW inability to balance their game.
We will have gotten through multiple Chapter Approved once all the Codexes are out, I would be very surprised if the DE hasn't been fixed (or nerfed to oblivion as GW is known to sometimes do) by then.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 14:13:09


 
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

Even if I agree that mathammering is generally a very narrow and skew way to look at things, that doesn't mean that data and math should not be used to evaluate the game. Those are literally the foundation of modern society and science.
We can literally predict who someone will vote based on the meme they share on a social network.... Do you really believe there is no way to generate and feed data to have some proper analysis? How much snowflake do you think wargaming is?

From my point of view, it's not a matter of impossibility, but simply the long lasting legacy of the bean counter in chief (Kirby) and the last poisoned fruits of a corporate vision that is build upon how a snowflake GW (as a company) is. They feel they're special, and that special rules apply only to them.

To go back on topic: I'm really curious of AdMech and how they will impact the meta, and I'm even more curious about when we will reach the breaking point in terms of lethality (I think before the end of 9th codex cycle).

In my opinion, a game that requires hours and hours of work to field a model, only to remove it as soon as an enemy look at it the wrong way isn't susteinable indefinitely.
There is a trade off to have miniatures rather than token: but 40k will more and more benefit from the use of token... It's a clear indicator that something is slowly broking.

I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Well, isn't the next codex AdMech?

Didn't they preview a gun that their regular troops get that causes flat 3 damage to vehicles?

That's a pretty hard counter to raiders, theoretically.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 17:03:17


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 whembly wrote:
Will, isn't the next codex AdMech?

Didn't they preview a gun that their regular troops get that causes flat 3 damage to vehicles?

That's a pretty hard counter to raiders, theoretically.


Just wait 'til you hear about this crazy gun that regular troops get that causes 2+D6 damage to vehicles.

No, Arc rifles aren't particularly scary to drukhari vehicles. The basic Plasma Caliver (slightly rejiggered plasma gun) that admech already have would be a more effective counter to drukhari vehicles. The arc rifle critically is strength 6 with a special rule that makes it always wound vehicles on a 4+....that's wasted vs drukhari since they would already wound them on 4+.

The main thing that makes admech look like a good counter to drukhari would be:

1) powerfully buffed ironstrider balistarii is both a very awkward profile for drukhari to attack defensively (for the same reason that drukhari are an awkward profile for most armies to attack) and has a 6-shot autocannon weapon.

2) 2-damage kastelan robot phosphor blasters have the potential to be both good vs marines and good vs drukhari, leading to those being a good TAC piece

3) arc weaponry , taser goads etc getting 1 point of AP makes them ideal offensively to attack drukhari defensive profiles.

Other than that, we do not know that much atm. I perosnally do not think Sending a Spider to Swallow the Fly is a particularly good method of balancing drukhari, and I also believe we will see the top stuff that's been discussed to death already in this thread bonked before too long.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 14:50:17


"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!"  
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Cybtroll wrote:
Even if I agree that mathammering is generally a very narrow and skew way to look at things, that doesn't mean that data and math should not be used to evaluate the game. Those are literally the foundation of modern society and science.
We can literally predict who someone will vote based on the meme they share on a social network.... Do you really believe there is no way to generate and feed data to have some proper analysis? How much snowflake do you think wargaming is?

From my point of view, it's not a matter of impossibility, but simply the long lasting legacy of the bean counter in chief (Kirby) and the last poisoned fruits of a corporate vision that is build upon how a snowflake GW (as a company) is. They feel they're special, and that special rules apply only to them.

To go back on topic: I'm really curious of AdMech and how they will impact the meta, and I'm even more curious about when we will reach the breaking point in terms of lethality (I think before the end of 9th codex cycle).

In my opinion, a game that requires hours and hours of work to field a model, only to remove it as soon as an enemy look at it the wrong way isn't susteinable indefinitely.
There is a trade off to have miniatures rather than token: but 40k will more and more benefit from the use of token... It's a clear indicator that something is slowly broking.


I'm not that sure about lethality increasing.

I too had that impression, but then I thought about what we faced in older editions.

There was this time where we were scared of dreadnaughts firing 4 S8 AP4 shots, which is laughable firepower now. Then I thought about old rules, and noticed that those 4 shots had not so bad chances of scrapping 2 rhinos. From very far away.
I can't think of many non-LoW models today that could do that. Not even 3 assault bikes with multimelta do it that well.
And obviously I'm not considering the whole of 7th edition, were things were just dumb.

Are we sure that lethality has increased compared to old editions?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 14:53:24


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Spoletta wrote:
 Cybtroll wrote:
Even if I agree that mathammering is generally a very narrow and skew way to look at things, that doesn't mean that data and math should not be used to evaluate the game. Those are literally the foundation of modern society and science.
We can literally predict who someone will vote based on the meme they share on a social network.... Do you really believe there is no way to generate and feed data to have some proper analysis? How much snowflake do you think wargaming is?

From my point of view, it's not a matter of impossibility, but simply the long lasting legacy of the bean counter in chief (Kirby) and the last poisoned fruits of a corporate vision that is build upon how a snowflake GW (as a company) is. They feel they're special, and that special rules apply only to them.

To go back on topic: I'm really curious of AdMech and how they will impact the meta, and I'm even more curious about when we will reach the breaking point in terms of lethality (I think before the end of 9th codex cycle).

In my opinion, a game that requires hours and hours of work to field a model, only to remove it as soon as an enemy look at it the wrong way isn't susteinable indefinitely.
There is a trade off to have miniatures rather than token: but 40k will more and more benefit from the use of token... It's a clear indicator that something is slowly broking.


I'm not that sure about lethality increasing.

I too had that impression, but then I thought about what we faced in older editions.

There was this time where we were scared of dreadnaughts firing 4 S8 AP4 shots, which is laughable firepower now. Then I thought about old rules, and noticed that those 4 shots had not so bad chances of scrapping 2 rhinos. From very far away.
I can't think of many non-LoW models today that could do that. Not even 3 assault bikes with multimelta do it that well.
And obviously I'm not considering the whole of 7th edition, were things were just dumb.

Are we sure that lethality has increased compared to old editions?


IMO a large amount of the reason why older editions felt less deadly was because GW pushed really super hard for a really really long time that for every squad you bought, you'd be insane not to buy a transport for that squad because they were super super cheap (like, 35pts for a trukk to protect your 80pt boyz squad). That meant that by default, every army that could was running a highly mechanized list with a lot of generally not terribly offensively threatning transports like Rhinos, Devilfish, Trukks, Chimeras and the factions that had transports that could also fight well (razorbacks, waveserpents, venoms) were very powerful.

in terms of 'i've got my las-predator and im gonna shoot it at your las-predator' or 'i've got my tactical squad and im gonna shoot it at your squad of guardsmen' 9th is actually usually less deadly than say 5th.

"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!"  
   
Made in us
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

Previous editions were more binary.

If you had the proper weapon, it was very damn easy to kill something. But if you didn't, there were many things that were practically impossible to kill.

The worst example being that if you lacked enough AT and run into a mechanized list, you were fethed. And of course the different death star mechanics that were meant to abuse different rules to get the most absurdly durable units (from the Paladin star in 5th to the Screamer star in 7th).
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Tyran wrote:
Previous editions were more binary.

If you had the proper weapon, it was very damn easy to kill something. But if you didn't, there were many things that were practically impossible to kill.

The worst example being that if you lacked enough AT and run into a mechanized list, you were fethed. And of course the different death star mechanics that were meant to abuse different rules to get the most absurdly durable units (from the Paladin star in 5th to the Screamer star in 7th).


^THATS true, durability-skew death stars are very much less of a thing in 8th/9th than they were in previous editions. You no longer commonly have units that their whole thing is 'they literally cannot be killed by anything, you would take like 20 turns of continuous fire to kill this thing you just have to play around it as best you can', mostly because of the removal of attaching characters to units to gain special abiliites.

"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!"  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Tyran wrote:
Previous editions were more binary.

If you had the proper weapon, it was very damn easy to kill something. But if you didn't, there were many things that were practically impossible to kill.

The worst example being that if you lacked enough AT and run into a mechanized list, you were fethed. And of course the different death star mechanics that were meant to abuse different rules to get the most absurdly durable units (from the Paladin star in 5th to the Screamer star in 7th).


But that is the same situation we have right now. The problem is that most armies do not have a way to destroy multiple transports with inv saves, when they hide out of LoS. And it is even visible in how the win ratios were shaped over the course of 9th ed. All armies had a similar 45-55% win rates, besides one who was clearly a lot better, and now got an even better version of the same over achiving army, and non wide spread options to counter either.


SM and DG are definitely not very far from drukhari.

Show me the multiple events where DA or DG took most of top 8, and were being souped in to other armies that reached top 8. Or when were DG at 78% win rate.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: