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.

 Dysartes wrote:
Data quality question again, Daed - how're the IG managing a 50% win rate... from an odd number of games?

Ties -- BCP stores a win as 2, draw as 1, and loss as 0. So the calculation becomes the sum of all "points" divided by 2 then divided by games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kargan3033 wrote:
So with the quoted texted in mind you are basically say that the 9th ed 40k is well for the lack of a better term F'ed up, at lest the Custodes and T'au are more broken then a gravel pit?

I wouldn't state it like that, no, but I recognize the problem and how it can affect people negatively.

Getting a book exactly right....is likely insanely difficult. I don't want the pendulum to swing the other way and books come out anemic. It's just that books that go too far in the OP direction are worse for the community and the game.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But seriously, the Eldar book'll be out in a fortnight and it'll shake things up again. I don't think it's worth worrying about.

Yea, I know....my butt is clenched. :(

 Aenar wrote:
The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time

As I've explained in other threads in the past - yes playtesting is done ahead of the release schedule, everything is "balanced' around a gamestate that doesn't exist yet. This is by necessity - they have multiple codexes in development at any given time, due to lead times with publications, etc. a codex is finalized several months before its released, during which time balance changes in the live meta are often implemented which can cause the power level of a finalized but unpublished codex to vary from its balanced state.

Obviously this approach causes all sorts of problems in terms of the impact new releases have on the live meta, as the counter to a book perceived as OP today might not drop for another 6-9 months, during which time you have to make changes to balance the live meta or the game will suffer without them, but the tradeoff is that the balance of those forthcoming books will also suffer as a result of the changes you make to the live meta which can't be captured in playtesting before the book is finalized. In essence, by "patching" the live meta in response to immediate balance concerns, you end up releasing forthcoming books into a context that they were never playtested in as those patches are often not captured in the "test environment" in the near term due to the publication schedule, as a result this effects the balance of not only what has already been released but also everything that has yet to be released as well. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in general, the trend of live balancing is to reduce power, which only serves to make newer releases appear more powerful by comparison and exacerbates "codex creep", which itself is the result of the release schedule being too lengthy and drawn out.

Early books always end up underpowered because they are playtested against the meta of the previous edition of the game, the power ramps up over time because playtesting builds upon itself over the course of each edition and is heavily skewed towards collecting data on the next few unreleased books/factions simultaneously rather than taking a "slow and steady" approach of palytesting only against other books in the live environment. Codex Creep also results from the rapid-fire nature of the edition cycle, at this point in an edition lifecycle they will have started writing and playtesting with early drafts of the next edition of the rules in mind in an effort to try to future-proof the books somewhat, which comes with its own problems.

Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.

Have a look into https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-gold-standard-pt-1/
where you find recent tournament results.
Custodes, Tau and GSC are dominating the top tables.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time

As I've explained in other threads in the past - yes playtesting is done ahead of the release schedule, everything is "balanced' around a gamestate that doesn't exist yet. This is by necessity - they have multiple codexes in development at any given time, due to lead times with publications, etc. a codex is finalized several months before its released, during which time balance changes in the live meta are often implemented which can cause the power level of a finalized but unpublished codex to vary from its balanced state.

Obviously this approach causes all sorts of problems in terms of the impact new releases have on the live meta, as the counter to a book perceived as OP today might not drop for another 6-9 months, during which time you have to make changes to balance the live meta or the game will suffer without them, but the tradeoff is that the balance of those forthcoming books will also suffer as a result of the changes you make to the live meta which can't be captured in playtesting before the book is finalized. In essence, by "patching" the live meta in response to immediate balance concerns, you end up releasing forthcoming books into a context that they were never playtested in as those patches are often not captured in the "test environment" in the near term due to the publication schedule, as a result this effects the balance of not only what has already been released but also everything that has yet to be released as well. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in general, the trend of live balancing is to reduce power, which only serves to make newer releases appear more powerful by comparison and exacerbates "codex creep", which itself is the result of the release schedule being too lengthy and drawn out.

Early books always end up underpowered because they are playtested against the meta of the previous edition of the game, the power ramps up over time because playtesting builds upon itself over the course of each edition and is heavily skewed towards collecting data on the next few unreleased books/factions simultaneously rather than taking a "slow and steady" approach of palytesting only against other books in the live environment. Codex Creep also results from the rapid-fire nature of the edition cycle, at this point in an edition lifecycle they will have started writing and playtesting with early drafts of the next edition of the rules in mind in an effort to try to future-proof the books somewhat, which comes with its own problems.

Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.

That was a great read. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look into https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-gold-standard-pt-1/
where you find recent tournament results.
Custodes, Tau and GSC are dominating the top tables.

fun fact, GSc list is faulty, nick bought a singular democharge, which is not an option for his hybrids, therefor, he actually played with 2005 pts,

chaos0xomega wrote:
Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.

I think this is true to a degree. Seemingly unusual results from a tournament can sometimes be explained by a very atypical composition of factions. So for example at the time of Marine Dominance, Marines were making up about 30-35% of most tournament lists. But there were some where this approached 50% - and others where it was as low as 20%.

The problem I think though is that we very rarely see a meta in 40k of X keeps Y in check which keeps Z in check so everyone can sort of rub along together.
You tend to have a faction which at least soft counters just about everything (seemingly like Custodes today). And you then have a faction (more like Tau) which has perhaps some "weaker" matchups - but these are still at worst 55/45 toss ups, while you retain crushing dominance versus the rest of the field. Then you have your midtable gatekeepers. And then at the other end you have factions which are just in trouble.

And that's sort of the concern. Its hard to see why say Death Guard win percentage would go up if CWE come out and dumpster everyone. Mainly because it feels like if CWE can cope with Custodes, they really should be able to cope with DG (and in turn, if CWE can't cope with Custodes, they aren't going to be winning many tournaments).

Those were magnificent points.

AOS was playtested in the early days horribly. I know other games I am a playtester on are also not tested great.

Hell in Conquest we had guys playtesting WITH THEIR WIVES and saying "yeah its fine everythings fine".

You need even numbers, standard style lists of varying degree, and repetitive games to start to see the patterns.

What we see in most any playtest group are some people playing some games and then a rainbow of opinions come out, often contradictory, where one faction has had like 60% of the entire playtest pool dedicated to it and the others a fraction of that.

And then we get the final product which is... what we have today.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look into https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-gold-standard-pt-1/
where you find recent tournament results.
Custodes, Tau and GSC are dominating the top tables.

fun fact, GSc list is faulty, nick bought a singular democharge, which is not an option for his hybrids, therefor, he actually played with 2005 pts,

Its shocking how you can even make that mistake when buying 1 demo for 5 isn't an option. This isn't 8th with points per weapon in a big list and the need to cross reference what each unit/model has. Its right there under Acolyte Hybrids.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look into https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-gold-standard-pt-1/
where you find recent tournament results.
Custodes, Tau and GSC are dominating the top tables.

fun fact, GSc list is faulty, nick bought a singular democharge, which is not an option for his hybrids, therefor, he actually played with 2005 pts,

Oh the humanity, oh the Horror!
They should be drawn & quartered and their head impaled upon a pike @ Warhammer World.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look into https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-gold-standard-pt-1/
where you find recent tournament results.
Custodes, Tau and GSC are dominating the top tables.

fun fact, GSc list is faulty, nick bought a singular democharge, which is not an option for his hybrids, therefor, he actually played with 2005 pts,

Oh the humanity, oh the Horror!
They should be drawn & quartered and their head impaled upon a pike @ Warhammer World.

Scuse me, but A as ordana stated, its doubly stated. B It stands out within the context of the codex , very much so. C. The list is just faulty in a way that it has nock on effects,fwiw it leads to f.e flame pistols squad not being a reliable marker for crossfire, which considering crossfire is quite a big deal can cut down firepower from neophytes not unsiginificantly or for the ridgerunners.
And no, all in all its just 5 pts and an honest mistake most likely but still in the way this list is built it has reprecussions. And no i don't want him quartered for it but it IS a fault that will have had impact due to the way the GSC dex is designed.

 vict0988 wrote:
You might be playing with too much terrain, you need to follow GW's exact tournament terrain specifications with only two different setups using the exact same 10 pieces of terrain every game or the game balance goes belly up /sarcasm.

To pick up on that despite you being sarcastic - I've actually found those set-ups a good starting point for fun games. Take some terrain that very roughly fits those 10 pieces and set up the table by eye-balling distances. You then make some room for larger models to move and add some "scatter terrain" like containers, barricades and craters. Once you're done, you end up with a decent looking table that allows you to both hide your stuff and still take shots at units not in hiding.

And then you get smacked off that table by an army that ignores almost all terrain rules

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
The scuttlebutt is that Custodes were playtested vs the new Eldar so the playtesters' feedback (ie that Custodes needed to be cheaper) is based on that level of "power".
And Eldar are dropping in 4 days time

As I've explained in other threads in the past - yes playtesting is done ahead of the release schedule, everything is "balanced' around a gamestate that doesn't exist yet. This is by necessity - they have multiple codexes in development at any given time, due to lead times with publications, etc. a codex is finalized several months before its released, during which time balance changes in the live meta are often implemented which can cause the power level of a finalized but unpublished codex to vary from its balanced state.

Obviously this approach causes all sorts of problems in terms of the impact new releases have on the live meta, as the counter to a book perceived as OP today might not drop for another 6-9 months, during which time you have to make changes to balance the live meta or the game will suffer without them, but the tradeoff is that the balance of those forthcoming books will also suffer as a result of the changes you make to the live meta which can't be captured in playtesting before the book is finalized. In essence, by "patching" the live meta in response to immediate balance concerns, you end up releasing forthcoming books into a context that they were never playtested in as those patches are often not captured in the "test environment" in the near term due to the publication schedule, as a result this effects the balance of not only what has already been released but also everything that has yet to be released as well. This is exacerbated by the fact that, in general, the trend of live balancing is to reduce power, which only serves to make newer releases appear more powerful by comparison and exacerbates "codex creep", which itself is the result of the release schedule being too lengthy and drawn out.

Early books always end up underpowered because they are playtested against the meta of the previous edition of the game, the power ramps up over time because playtesting builds upon itself over the course of each edition and is heavily skewed towards collecting data on the next few unreleased books/factions simultaneously rather than taking a "slow and steady" approach of palytesting only against other books in the live environment. Codex Creep also results from the rapid-fire nature of the edition cycle, at this point in an edition lifecycle they will have started writing and playtesting with early drafts of the next edition of the rules in mind in an effort to try to future-proof the books somewhat, which comes with its own problems.

Another big source of balance issues though are the meta itself and, well, the playerbase. Playtesting is generally viewed as a "value neutral" (for lack of a better term) within the meta. I.E. its done in a manner that assumes that its okay that certain builds have a rough time against certain other builds, so long as thats offset by having a good time against other builds, because what they are trying to achieve with balance is the fabled 50% winrate. Problem with this though, is it only really works if you have an equal number of players in each build/faction... but you don't. Aside from the fact that theres way more Space Marine players than there are Genestealer Cults players, you also have the fact that players will "chase" the meta and surge into factions that are deemed to overperform at the expense of factions that are deeme to underperform, in effect weighting the meta in favor of certain builds, factions, and playstyles. Case in point - Thousand Sons are generally perceived as a mid-tier faction, in large part this is because they stuggle against Drukhari who are very efficient at killing MEQ. If Drukhari were 10% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, then Thousand Sons do a lot better (because they are actually a pretty powerful army with some really solid rules)... but when Drukhari are ~40% of a Thousand Sons players matchups, well then you're not going to have an easy time getting higher tournament placements and thus the perception of how it fares in terms of balance gets skewed by the weight of Drukhari players.

This is fundamentally backwards. The meta is a response to the codexes and codex creep, not the other way around. If multiple codexes were being developed at the same time, then they would all come out at about the same power level. Instead, each and every codex that has come out in 9th is a power-step above the previous codex. This implies that each codex is only playtested against the prior codex, not every codex since Marines, definitely not against the baseline Marine codex, and built specifically to best the prior codex. Case in point: Girlyman vs. Trajann. Just about the same capability, one is HALF the cost of the other. No semi-competent playtester would let that through.

There is minor evidence to the contrary, for example looking at Space Wolf Hounds of Morkai's potential use against Thousands Sons and Grey Knights. But that evidence is quickly shot down because the HoM can't even perform their function against any psyker, not just TS & GKs. And this scant evidence is overwhelmed by the unit-over-unit, army-over-army, codex-over-codex, month-after-month, year-over-year codex power level increased.

The final nail in that coffin is that all the latest codexes have answers to codex creep by having counters to prior codexes, while none of the prior codexes have answers to the latest codexes. How many codexes before Tau/Custodes have mainline units that shoot indirectly (a direct response to terrain increases), and/or ignore invulnerables (a response to the proliferferation of INV saves from AP proliferation) AND mainline units that move-shoot-move, a direct response to terrain and units ignoring INV saves?

Simple answer: None.

brainpsyk wrote:
This is fundamentally backwards. The meta is a response to the codexes and codex creep, not the other way around. If multiple codexes were being developed at the same time, then they would all come out at about the same power level. Instead, each and every codex that has come out in 9th is a power-step above the previous codex. This implies that each codex is only playtested against the prior codex, not every codex since Marines, definitely not against the baseline Marine codex, and built specifically to best the prior codex. Case in point: Girlyman vs. Trajann. Just about the same capability, one is HALF the cost of the other. No semi-competent playtester would let that through.

Drukhari were out in March. That puts Tau and Custodes testing against that army as a highly likely. Playtesters testing against the strongest army is valid, but causes a disconnect if GW isn't telling them that DE shouldn't be that powerful.

That Bobby exists probably doesn't even register to most play testers. He doesn't register to me at all unless I see him played. It's quite difficult to make sure you test everything against everything.

The final nail in that coffin is that all the latest codexes have answers to codex creep by having counters to prior codexes, while none of the prior codexes have answers to the latest codexes. How many codexes before Tau/Custodes have mainline units that shoot indirectly (a direct response to terrain increases), and/or ignore invulnerables (a response to the proliferferation of INV saves from AP proliferation) AND mainline units that move-shoot-move, a direct response to terrain and units ignoring INV saves?

Ingoring invulnerable saves is in Necrons, CSM, and Thousand Sons.
Move-shoot-move was a thing Eldar and Tau did in editions prior - they're just bringing it back.

In 8th edition IG mortars and TFCs were used so often it was sickening and it had nothing to do with AP or invulnerable saves.

You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

brainpsyk wrote:
It's quite difficult to make sure you test everything against everything.

GW is a multi-million dollar international company (with record profits the last few years) with revenue in the hundreds of millions. One article in 2021 even states they are operating at 43% profit margin.

They could actually hire 40 people to play games every day, 40 hours a week for minimum wage, to record data and not even spend $1mil doing so. Probably less depending on which country they do this in. If they wanted to be cheap they could do more people as part-time with no benefits.

It's not difficult...they just don't want to. And from a business standpoint; it's working for them just fine 'as is'.

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.

That, wasn't my point, at all. My point is that gw shouldn't need playtestors to tell them that a lot of the stuff in the new codexes aren't balanced against their counterparts in older codexes and vice-versa. You shouldn't need playtesting to tell you that a unit with similar stats + abilities, or in some cases better stats and abilities, shouldn't be cheaper than a similar unit in an older codex. It should be common sense.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.

That, wasn't my point, at all. My point is that gw shouldn't need playtestors to tell them that a lot of the stuff in the new codexes aren't balanced against their counterparts in older codexes and vice-versa. You shouldn't need playtesting to tell you that a unit with similar stats + abilities, or in some cases better stats and abilities, shouldn't be cheaper than a similar unit in an older codex. It should be common sense.

Assuming, of course, that their goal is to balance new Codexes against older Codexes, and not just to generate hype for new releases in order to sell minis at the expense of any gameplay considerations.

Yes, assuming that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Yeah, to be frank, those playtesters need to have their noses rubbed in it.

That, wasn't my point, at all. My point is that gw shouldn't need playtestors to tell them that a lot of the stuff in the new codexes aren't balanced against their counterparts in older codexes and vice-versa. You shouldn't need playtesting to tell you that a unit with similar stats + abilities, or in some cases better stats and abilities, shouldn't be cheaper than a similar unit in an older codex. It should be common sense.

The thing is...GW don't care.

 D6Damager wrote:


GW is a multi-million dollar international company (with record profits the last few years) with revenue in the hundreds of millions. One article in 2021 even states they are operating at 43% profit margin.

They could actually hire 40 people to play games every day, 40 hours a week for minimum wage, to record data and not even spend $1mil doing so. Probably less depending on which country they do this in. If they wanted to be cheap they could do more people as part-time with no benefits.

It's not difficult...they just don't want to. And from a business standpoint; it's working for them just fine 'as is'.

Managers ( that's a lot of people ), payroll taxes, office space, data collection, analysis, etc. I don't think our hobby game balance is worth exploiting part time workers with no holiday or sick pay, either.

It isn't like you put 40 slobs in a room and magic happens. And no bean counter is going to sign off on that, because GW will sell models just because they look cool.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drukhari were out in March. That puts Tau and Custodes testing against that army as a highly likely. Playtesters testing against the strongest army is valid, but causes a disconnect if GW isn't telling them that DE shouldn't be that powerful.

That Bobby exists probably doesn't even register to most play testers. He doesn't register to me at all unless I see him played. It's quite difficult to make sure you test everything against everything.

He absolutely should. If GW is only playtesting against specific weaker units, then codexes should come out weaker, not stronger. But new codexes are coming out stronger against latest meta armies with ridiculous win rates.

If DE were out in March, then DE should have been playtested against Marines, DG, TS, GSC, Custodes and Tau. You only need 9 data points to make a decision, and 9 games of DE vs. Marines, or 9 games vs DG would have told GW DE is too strong. 9 games of Custodes vs Marines would have told GW that Custodes are too strong, etc. Instead, GW buffed DE and buffed Custodes right before release, implying they weren't beating other codexes by a large enough margin.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ingoring invulnerable saves is in Necrons, CSM, and Thousand Sons.
Move-shoot-move was a thing Eldar and Tau did in editions prior - they're just bringing it back.

In 8th edition IG mortars and TFCs were used so often it was sickening and it had nothing to do with AP or invulnerable saves.

Yep, kinda like how the latest codexes are sickening against older 9th edition codexes...

It's so bad, even the a Poly Sci stats class will give you enough data to show how bad it is (~100 point of models, no buffs/strats/doctrines/etc, best shooting weapon profile):

* 5x Intercessor Bolt Rifle vs. intercessor mean: 1.6 μ=2.0 σ=1.2 * skitariiRanger GalvanicRifle vs. intercessor mean: 3.6 μ=4.0 σ=1.7 * firewarrior PulseBlaster vs. intercessor mean: 5.3 μ=5.0 σ=2.0

Those aren't even the best units in those codexes, and those numbers get far far worse when you start to include melee stats, strats, doctrines, etc. So any claim of 'balance' or 'playtesting' at this point is 99% pure, unadulterated bunk.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.

You might have a point with the Monolith's ability to deep strike and teleport troops, but it's superior BS and whopping TWO extra wounds fall flat compared to the Stormsurge's superior firepower and 4++. And it still doesn't help the similarly priced, but not similarly statted, Naughts. And definitely not the far less durable, lower firepower, and more expensive Cerberus. And that's just comparisons to the Stormsurge. Explain the price difference between the Wraithknight and similar units like Baneblades etc. It isn't "fuzzy" and you know it. They're throwing these new codexes out with no regard for the older codexes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.

You might have a point with the Monolith's ability to deep strike and teleport troops, but it's superior BS and whopping TWO extra wounds fall flat compared to the Stormsurge's superior firepower and 4++. And it still doesn't help the similarly priced, but not similarly statted, Naughts. And definitely not the far less durable, lower firepower, and more expensive Cerberus. And that's just comparisons to the Stormsurge. Explain the price difference between the Wraithknight and similar units like Baneblades etc. It isn't "fuzzy" and you know it. They're throwing these new codexes out with no regard for the older codexes.

Baneblades suffer the ills of old edition.

The 'Nauts suffer from the flexibility of teleport, 3D6 charge, rerollable charges, and flat 6 damage that can hit on 2s.

And, of course, GW seems to way over value transport capacity.

I couldn't tell you why 330 for the SS was considered appropriate, but it also probably isn't far off. SS up by 40 and Nauts down by 40 probably wouldn't break the game. And give the god damn velocity and multi-tracker a points cost for christs sake. There's no way it should be free regardless of model.

Obviously something IS broken with the process, but it's more at a scale that goes beyond individual units and points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

brainpsyk wrote:

It's so bad, even the a Poly Sci stats class will give you enough data to show how bad it is (~100 point of models, no buffs/strats/doctrines/etc, best shooting weapon profile):

* 5x Intercessor Bolt Rifle vs. intercessor mean: 1.6 μ=2.0 σ=1.2 * skitariiRanger GalvanicRifle vs. intercessor mean: 3.6 μ=4.0 σ=1.7 * firewarrior PulseBlaster vs. intercessor mean: 5.3 μ=5.0 σ=2.0

Those aren't even the best units in those codexes, and those numbers get far far worse when you start to include melee stats, strats, doctrines, etc. So any claim of 'balance' or 'playtesting' at this point is 99% pure, unadulterated bunk.

This is the kind of analysis that's terrible for balancing, because it completely ignores the defensive profile, melee, ranges, and more.

You opted to consider the pulse blaster, which is typically a 14" gun and compared it to a 30" marine rifle and it seems you went with the 8" profile. Could they get there with a devilfish? Absolutely, but that's an additional cost and consideration as well as a model that pops for D6 mortals.

The perceptions of the placement of marines in tournaments can be more to do with who is playing them than what their rules contain. Certain marine pilots do quite well and while they certainly need a boost the gap isn't so massive as to require massive changes.

brainpsyk wrote:
The final nail in that coffin is that all the latest codexes have answers to codex creep by having counters to prior codexes, while none of the prior codexes have answers to the latest codexes. How many codexes before Tau/Custodes have mainline units that shoot indirectly (a direct response to terrain increases), and/or ignore invulnerables (a response to the proliferferation of INV saves from AP proliferation) AND mainline units that move-shoot-move, a direct response to terrain and units ignoring INV saves?

Simple answer: None.

This really. Its perhaps inevitable that "later" codexes get new things. But from 8th and now into 9th its clear they are written with the meta in mind.
And this inevitably creates a sort of obsolescence. That can perhaps be fixed by just giving older codexes 10% more points due to reductions every year - but its not great.

GW should have in mind that "buffing close combat character with these stats" is worth about X. +/- 10% given the vagaries of faction rules is fine. But when you are out by maybe 50% its not. Its just clear evidence you have no idea what you are doing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You don't have to playtest Trajan vs Gulliman directly to see that their comparative prices are off. The rules writers should know what Gulliman's stats and abilities are, and what Trajan's stats and abilities are, and should be able to price both accordingly. If the prices don't match the abilities + stats in comparison, then that just means they aren't comparing these similar units when deciding on their prices. And they don't appear to be doing that when it comes to pricing older units to their newer counterparts. Just look at the LoWs from older codexes like the Monolith and Ork 'Naughts compared to the Stormsurge and upcoming Wraithknight. The pricing is way off. Gw shouldn't need the playtestors to tell them that.

Oh there's flaws in playtesting and design considerations no doubt, but it gets fuzzy when you can deepstrike, teleport in troops, extra wounds, better native BS, and auto-hit in melee.

You might have a point with the Monolith's ability to deep strike and teleport troops, but it's superior BS and whopping TWO extra wounds fall flat compared to the Stormsurge's superior firepower and 4++. And it still doesn't help the similarly priced, but not similarly statted, Naughts. And definitely not the far less durable, lower firepower, and more expensive Cerberus. And that's just comparisons to the Stormsurge. Explain the price difference between the Wraithknight and similar units like Baneblades etc. It isn't "fuzzy" and you know it. They're throwing these new codexes out with no regard for the older codexes.

Baneblades suffer the ills of old edition.

The 'Nauts suffer from the flexibility of teleport, 3D6 charge, rerollable charges, and flat 6 damage that can hit on 2s.

And, of course, GW seems to way over value transport capacity.

I couldn't tell you why 330 for the SS was considered appropriate, but it also probably isn't far off. SS up by 40 and Nauts down by 40 probably wouldn't break the game. And give the god damn velocity and multi-tracker a points cost for christs sake. There's no way it should be free regardless of model.

Obviously something IS broken with the process, but it's more at a scale that goes beyond individual units and points.

Just because something is "old edition", doesn't mean it can't be fairly priced compared to "new edition" things. If gw expects people to play 9th with 8th edition codexes, then they need to put in the effort needed to keep those 8th edition codexes relevant until the 9th edition replacement is available. That's just basic customer service.

And the individual unit points are a symptom of the bigger problem with the process. They aren't keeping the whole game balanced. Just playing whack-a-mole with overly powerful tournament builds isn't fixing the problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Data quality question again, Daed - how're the IG managing a 50% win rate... from an odd number of games?

Ties -- BCP stores a win as 2, draw as 1, and loss as 0. So the calculation becomes the sum of all "points" divided by 2 then divided by games.

So none of those figures are actual win percentages, then? Good to know.

Would be better with three COUNTIF() (or possibly COUNTIFS()) functions for each, so you know how many games end with a W/D/L result, then report those percentages.

Not that I'd expect all that many draws in the data, unless TOs are letting people get away with ID as a result again...

Racerguy180 wrote:

The thing is...GW don't care.

THIS.

Why do so many, here, on other forums, message boards, and at game shops around the world continue to hold onto some kind of "hope" that GW will change its ways and some day give a damn about the rules and balance of 40K when so many are willing to hand them money, hand over fist, for the current mess of bloated and unbalanced rules GW continues to churn out? We are talking about rulebooks so full of issues that errata/faq updates for each book are automatically assumed and expected soon after release, some updates even require you to pay more money (ex. chapter approved/points updates), and a lot of these books you paid for are invalidated just months after release.

Many of you helped GW reach record profits in recent years by supporting this crap with your money, and yet you post so much on boards like this about how unbalanced the codexes are, how bloated the rules are, and "if only" GW would fix "this" or "that." In my opinion, if you paid money for these books knowing well what the state of the game is, then you have no right to complain; you are another enabler of GW's shoddy rules writing and antiquated rules distribution system (are we no longer living in a "digital age?").

Newsflash: As long as so many continue to give more and more money to GW for this crap, GW does not care one bit what you think. They will continue to take your money while giving you gak rules in return because so many of you have signaled you will lap it up and keep on asking for more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This is the kind of analysis that's terrible for balancing, because it completely ignores the defensive profile, melee, ranges, and more.

You opted to consider the pulse blaster, which is typically a 14" gun and compared it to a 30" marine rifle and it seems you went with the 8" profile. Could they get there with a devilfish? Absolutely, but that's an additional cost and consideration as well as a model that pops for D6 mortals.

The perceptions of the placement of marines in tournaments can be more to do with who is playing them than what their rules contain. Certain marine pilots do quite well and while they certainly need a boost the gap isn't so massive as to require massive changes.

That would be true if there were serious advantages in the marine's shooting, which there is not. The Galvanic rifles perform at that level out to 30", meaning their profile is even better at longer ranges.

The melee of the marines is not 3x that of the Rangers or the Tau, so that point is moot as well.

As for the transport: Red Herring and hand waving, not going there.

Absolutely, who is playing marines makes a difference. Those are probably well experienced players playing a known faction with tons of hours behind their lists. Then Custodes come in at LVO with little playtesting of a brand new codex and stomp all over them with ridiculous output and durability. The advantage there should have been with the marines, but codex creep made it 90% about the codex and not the players experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gnarlly wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

The thing is...GW don't care.

THIS.

Why do so many, here, on other forums, message boards, and at game shops around the world continue to hold onto some kind of "hope" that GW will change its ways and some day give a damn about the rules and balance of 40K when so many are willing to hand them money, hand over fist, for the current mess of bloated and unbalanced rules GW continues to churn out? We are talking about rulebooks so full of issues that errata/faq updates for each book are automatically assumed and expected soon after release, some updates even require you to pay more money (ex. chapter approved/points updates), and a lot of these books you paid for are invalidated just months after release.

I don't anymore. I will buy the rulebooks, but all my models are used off of Ebay. I'm even looking at picking up a 4K resin printer ($450ish) and 3D printing an entire Tau army.

If the GW App was of a quality where I didn't need the rulebooks & Codexes, I wouldn't even buy those (which is probably why the GW app is lacking...).