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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

3) No one plays the game without errata.

I really like how "die hard" players/posters see the reality of the hobby.

Perhaps players "shouldnt" play with outdated rules... But since many gamers dont even know were to find the erratas, or havent check them recently or dont remember them... Many, many games are actually played without erratas.

On the mind of many gamers and in the internet chats there exist a "canonical and correct" 40K version than is hardly never enacted in the tabletop (this happends on almost all games but much more in the bloated ness than 40K has became).

Obviously none of this "die hard/pro" players would recognise the simple truth that the Emperor is naked.

Except there was a thread on that very topic recently and essentially everyone agreed (and dakka basically never agrees on anything) that playing without errata is a dumb thing to do.

You also don't get to complain about balance and not use errata at the same time.

Plus it would be like playing football without goals. It is technically possible, but is it even football, if there are no ways to score?

Also as soon as someone intredcues an infinit number of attack succubi, or liquifires pre nerfs, even the most uninerested in other armies updated people, will go check if it really works the way their opponent play it.

In an age of people constantly connected to internet I don't see why free errata that are released every few months are considered a problem or even a cumbersome thing to look at.

 Jidmah wrote:
Except there was a thread on that very topic recently and essentially everyone agreed (and dakka basically never agrees on anything) that playing without errata is a dumb thing to do.

You also don't get to complain about balance and not use errata at the same time.

If nobody plays without errata how come i have still had to explain where winner of roll off goes first period time to time?


As much as it might shock online forum users we are super tiny minority of gw players. Using forum poll that vast majority of players will never see and even those in online might not be at dakka(believe it or not not everybody is on dakka), not all dakka　users see thread(myself missed it i think) and not all bother to reply.

Forum polls are　very, very, very inaccurate way to determine anything except how tiny minority plays.

If you play without errata then you are the kind of player that wouldn't be affected by whatever was written there.

Its funny how some people declare that tracking 60+ erratas documents and 300+ strats is so easy that nobody should complain but they are unable to read and understand a post with 4 phrases (because they completelly miss the point).

Essentially saying that "every body plays 40K ussing Faqs and errata" is like saying that "everybody in the EU follows the full complement of EU laws"... that you believe such things because you are naive, uninformed or arguing in bad faith dosent make them real



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
If you play without errata then you are the kind of player that wouldn't be affected by whatever was written there.

Do you even understand the difference between intentions and execution???

Its virtually impossible to play the game following RAW because those are thousand of pages of rullings dispersed over 100+ documents that are under constant upgrade... if someone really played a game of 40k "100% RAW", they probably have some sort of health problem.

Its just like laws in most countries, most people want to follow the law... but most of them break the law constantly out of convenience or ignorance.

Do you think people in Western Europe have followed 100% the Covid restricition laws??... they are much, much more easy to understand than current 40K rules.

I follow the full complement of EU laws and all the covid restriction laws with no problem . Don't you?

Obviously not... Almost nobody those... But few will recognise soo.

Vatsetis wrote:
Obviously not... Almost nobody those... But few will recognise soo.

If you had brought up, say, jaywalking, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. Jaywalking might technically be illegal, but it’s such a minor thing that rarely does anyone care.

Covid precautions are a heck of a lot more important, though-they help protect against a deadly pandemic.

To relate back to 40k, if a unit is brokenly good, and gets a nerf via points, it’s very easy to follow that errata. Minutiae is harder to follow, but also less important to balancing the game, generally.

Add to that that people who use army builder tools will automatically use the latest points at some point.

And if we are to believe from the other ongoing thread, that "2k points, no house rules, no tuning down lists, RAW" is the standard everywhere, then I think these kind of players do keep up with latest errata.

Feels odd if they wouldn't.

A lot of errata is also closing RAW loopholes/interactions that might not effect more casual players.

When you are not pushing your lists to get the max power out of interactions, it doesn’t matter when they get fixed. But bleeding edge tournament players focus on them.

A casual player might stumble across on, think “this seems wrong” look up the errata and find it’s already been fixed.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Obviously not... Almost nobody those... But few will recognise soo.

If you had brought up, say, jaywalking, I’d be more inclined to agree with you. Jaywalking might technically be illegal, but it’s such a minor thing that rarely does anyone care.

Covid precautions are a heck of a lot more important, though-they help protect against a deadly pandemic.

To relate back to 40k, if a unit is brokenly good, and gets a nerf via points, it’s very easy to follow that errata. Minutiae is harder to follow, but also less important to balancing the game, generally.

I never said that the breaking of the rules was serious or done in bad faith by default... Only that minor infractions happend constantly most of the time out of pure ignorance.

For instance if even once in the last 18 months you didnt perfectly adjust your mask then you have tecnically broken the Covid measures and put others in danger... Also if you didnt use hot water and washed your hads for at least two minutes every single time for the last 18 months... As you see following all the rules all the time is difficult... Same with 40k.

I think there needs to be a distiction between someone who wants to play with the latest errata and gets something wrong on occasion and somebody who only plays with version 1.0 of every book and won't bother.

The first person is not really "playing without an errata".

Yes they are different cases... But "something wrong on occassion" can have a huge impact... Unfortunatly it cannot be measured because most of those mistakes go unrecorded.

GW doesn't really do balance patches worth anything, but they DO seem to try for bugfixes. 1W CSM and Tau still make me sad.

 Nevelon wrote:
A casual player might stumble across on, think “this seems wrong” look up the errata and find it’s already been fixed.

( this is not targeted at anyone )

AHHH MY ENTIRE EXPERIENCE IS RUINED BY A SMALL UNKNOWN ERRATA!!! I RETROACTIVELY HAD NO FUN AT ALL!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:
GW doesn't really do balance patches worth anything

Err...DE and Admech?

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Imho 9th dexes are doing a good job of having more valid options than the past editions.

Internal balance in the new codex is probably at its best levels in the history of 40k, despite the fact that most of the books have tons of datasheets. Codexes are also quite externally balanced as well. So yeah, definitely a great job so far, I agree.

*cough* Drukhari and AdMech *cough*. Worse than 8th and would be as bad as 7th if not for errata.

1) He said "Internal Balance". Your internal balance is not affected by drukhari and admech.
2) Since we have vast statistics for both 8th and 9th, we know as a hard fact that there was only a short time period during 8th when its balance was comparable to how it is now in 9th.
3) No one plays the game without errata.

1) He also said external balance was good. If Venoms were as good as pre-nerf Raiders then why aren't Venom lists at 80% win rate now? Same thing for Kataphrons replacing Skitarii troops post-nerf, the original internal balance in these codexes was not good. It was blindingly obvious that some units were OP back then, now I'm less sure. I would guess there are still units that are a lot more points efficient compared to other units in AdMech and Drukhari, like even if unit A was 20% more expensive you'd still pick it over unit B (if B had no change).
2) Not sure what this means? There were trash and amazing codexes in 8th and there are in 9th. There are units in every codex you would recommend someone stay away from on a points basis just like 8th either because the unit is too good or too bad for its price. Drukhari and AdMech are still top tier post-nerf and 1 point cheaper Riptides are still not ripping up the meta.
3) Yeah, but it's obvious errata is going to improve balance right? 1st-7th did not have erratas to iron out issues, on the other hand you didn't have to make sure none of your strategies were nerfed back then.

 Blackie wrote:
Can't really say about mech as I don't have their codex and the players I face here are very casual oriented, but drukhari? Really? Are ad mech really stomping everyone? Espcially without skewing?

I haven't played against either post-nerf, I've played very little the last month, I am just going off continued tournament success. I imagine in a casual environment with someone who knows to pick their B game units I'll be totally fine. One thing to remember is that people will not always skew based on internet bandwagons, but like me might be skewing into each unit a couple of times to better understand their codex or they might just have an unhealthy affixation with burning their enemies with Imperial Guard Hellhound flamer tanks. Ideally GW can make sure that games are still fun even if someone skews in a casual game, otherwise, I'd say balance isn't very good.

Internally their codex is awesome, with very few units that are unplayable and externally they're certainly strong but they don't bully anyone.

I am glad that has been your experience.

 Daedalus81 wrote:



Err...DE and Admech?

Admech appears to have been reined in. DE is still cruising along at 65+% post-nerf though, leveraging the multitude of powerful builds in that book. I don't know if the folks on here don't read your analyses or don't check out the roundup on reddit, but DE is still a scourge on the tournament scene and is a massive outlier in terms of power. It's also pretty tough in casual games -- not every unit is OP or anything, but the 7e Eldar comparisons are totally fair. Units just do too much, and they're priced too aggressively.

Plus, I assume that buggy build for Orks will put them in a DE-ish position soon enough. People will get ahold of the models. That said, that one really feels like a house of cards; if GW nerfed the Squigbuggy and the Scrapjet or whatever it is, I bet Orks would come back to earth.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
A casual player might stumble across on, think “this seems wrong” look up the errata and find it’s already been fixed.

( this is not targeted at anyone )

AHHH MY ENTIRE EXPERIENCE IS RUINED BY A SMALL UNKNOWN ERRATA!!! I RETROACTIVELY HAD NO FUN AT ALL!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:
GW doesn't really do balance patches worth anything

Err...DE and Admech?

DE and Admech strike me as bugfixes more than actual balance patches after the removal of a few key words, addition of a few phrases, but not much to address cost/performance. The admech CP changes are definitely balance, but given GW's track history it is hard to tell if GW didn't see the chicken walkers overperforming with the CORE keyword. We could also just have different opinions of balanced. I find that armies that can be anywhere from weak to strong depending on which units they take to be more balanced then every army having 1 competitive build with little in between.

I guess its what the thread is partially about, but I wouldn't be surprised if DE get clobbered in some December/January Chapter Approved. Ad Mech and Sisters may well join them, alongside Speedwaaagh lists if they are proving a comparable issue.

Its sort of why I've really gone off playing my DE. It feels like playing on mega easy mode - but equally I fear a 7th edition level liquidation of the faction to about where GSC are today.

(Speaking of GSC, I think they need a full on re-imaginging of how they are meant to play, preferably with a 3rd wave of actual units to facilitate this rather than "enjoy all the expensive clampacks alongside half the actual units which should do the same thing", and so I'm a bit non-plussed on building out my existing collection because of that.)

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:



Err...DE and Admech?

Admech appears to have been reined in. DE is still cruising along at 65+% post-nerf though, leveraging the multitude of powerful builds in that book. I don't know if the folks on here don't read your analyses or don't check out the roundup on reddit, but DE is still a scourge on the tournament scene and is a massive outlier in terms of power. It's also pretty tough in casual games -- not every unit is OP or anything, but the 7e Eldar comparisons are totally fair. Units just do too much, and they're priced too aggressively.

Plus, I assume that buggy build for Orks will put them in a DE-ish position soon enough. People will get ahold of the models. That said, that one really feels like a house of cards; if GW nerfed the Squigbuggy and the Scrapjet or whatever it is, I bet Orks would come back to earth.

Right, DE are still great, but if you were to ask the forum right now what exactly needs to be nerfed they'd be hard pressed to give an effective answer.

Most people will point to raiders, but there are many running 5 or fewer raiders and bringing in cronos. There's a guy who played like Harlies and did 12x5 Kabs with blasters. Grots and mandrakes are popping in. Reavers and Hellions aren't seen in huge units. Drazhar isn't always there.

Buggies are big models that take tons of space. I don't see them taking games, like DE, but the Kill Rig is still not out as well as the squigasaurs even though people proxy those easily enough. Buggies are hard up for secondaries and if you can screen out the Kommandos and deny primary from obsec charges through cover their games won't be big wins.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

DE and Admech strike me as bugfixes more than actual balance patches after the removal of a few key words, addition of a few phrases, but not much to address cost/performance. The admech CP changes are definitely balance, but given GW's track history it is hard to tell if GW didn't see the chicken walkers overperforming with the CORE keyword. We could also just have different opinions of balanced. I find that armies that can be anywhere from weak to strong depending on which units they take to be more balanced then every army having 1 competitive build with little in between.

The bug fix was in the core rules for the succubus. Drazhar and Raiders both took a point hit. Dark Tech can be considered a "bug", but is it a bug if they put it in the book deliberately? At that point we're discussing intent and that gets us nowhere anyway.

I find that armies that can be anywhere from weak to strong depending on which units they take to be more balanced then every army having 1 competitive build with little in between.

I don't quite understand this sentence. Naturally one can take a bad list if they try hard enough to ignore how to score points or how their units interact with other units in the game, but I haven't seen as much diversity in lists for 40K ever and I feel pretty unrestrained on which units can work well.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:



Err...DE and Admech?

Admech appears to have been reined in. DE is still cruising along at 65+% post-nerf though, leveraging the multitude of powerful builds in that book. I don't know if the folks on here don't read your analyses or don't check out the roundup on reddit, but DE is still a scourge on the tournament scene and is a massive outlier in terms of power. It's also pretty tough in casual games -- not every unit is OP or anything, but the 7e Eldar comparisons are totally fair. Units just do too much, and they're priced too aggressively.

Plus, I assume that buggy build for Orks will put them in a DE-ish position soon enough. People will get ahold of the models. That said, that one really feels like a house of cards; if GW nerfed the Squigbuggy and the Scrapjet or whatever it is, I bet Orks would come back to earth.

Right, DE are still great, but if you were to ask the forum right now what exactly needs to be nerfed they'd be hard pressed to give an effective answer.

Most people will point to raiders, but there are many running 5 or fewer raiders and bringing in cronos. There's a guy who played like Harlies and did 12x5 Kabs with blasters. Grots and mandrakes are popping in. Reavers and Hellions aren't seen in huge units. Drazhar isn't always there.

Buggies are big models that take tons of space. I don't see them taking games, like DE, but the Kill Rig is still not out as well as the squigasaurs even though people proxy those easily enough. Buggies are hard up for secondaries and if you can screen out the Kommandos and deny primary from obsec charges through cover their games won't be big wins.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:

DE and Admech strike me as bugfixes more than actual balance patches after the removal of a few key words, addition of a few phrases, but not much to address cost/performance. The admech CP changes are definitely balance, but given GW's track history it is hard to tell if GW didn't see the chicken walkers overperforming with the CORE keyword. We could also just have different opinions of balanced. I find that armies that can be anywhere from weak to strong depending on which units they take to be more balanced then every army having 1 competitive build with little in between.

The bug fix was in the core rules for the succubus. Drazhar and Raiders both took a point hit. Dark Tech can be considered a "bug", but is it a bug if they put it in the book deliberately? At that point we're discussing intent and that gets us nowhere anyway.

I find that armies that can be anywhere from weak to strong depending on which units they take to be more balanced then every army having 1 competitive build with little in between.

I don't quite understand this sentence. Naturally one can take a bad list if they try hard enough to ignore how to score points or how their units interact with other units in the game, but I haven't seen as much diversity in lists for 40K ever and I feel pretty unrestrained on which units can work well.

What I mean by that sentence, is that 1 army can power up or down to match another army depending on the desired strength of the game. For example, Space marines playing hyper competitive can play against hyper competitive Tau while the opposite is equally true. A super weak Tau list can be balanced against a super weak Space marine list ignoring natural counters etc. If you have to play tournament netlists against casual lists in order to have a fair game then balance isn't great. And yeah agreed on arguing intent is pointless although I was looking at admech more than DE. CP nerfs and point changes are balance patches, but we could go round and round about "was it an effective balance patch" or not.