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.

Just remember that you buying the rulebook still encourages GW to do the bare minimum.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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.

I mean they could lower the price of Baneblades to like...250 or something, but then what happens to LRBTs as they automatically get crowded out? How many people here would call it a sales ploy? How many people would buy them and then get upset to find their points get jacked up later?

Or on the reverse side - do you price the new superheavies high enough to make Baneblades comparatively worthwhile, which makes those units bad compared to the rest of the codex?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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.

I mean they could lower the price of Baneblades to like...250 or something, but then what happens to LRBTs as they automatically get crowded out? How many people here would call it a sales ploy? How many people would buy them and then get upset to find their points get jacked up later?

Or on the reverse side - do you price the new superheavies high enough to make Baneblades comparatively worthwhile, which makes those units bad compared to the rest of the codex?

That's.....pretty hyperbolic, Daed. Which isn't like you. You could definitely lower the price of Baneblades without getting them down to 250 PPM. And you could definitely give the newer LoWs a points bump that doesn't make them overpriced for their stats. At minimum, I'd say a 4 sponson Baneblade should at least be cheaper (not more expensive, which it currently is) than a Fellblade or Astraeus. And no, that doesn't mean increasing the prices for Fellblades and Astraeus, it means cutting the price for the Baneblade.

But, again, we're arguing individual unit points, which doesn't address the basic problem: gw aren't balancing the game as a whole. That's why we see these weirdly out of sync prices. They need to look at as much of the game as possible (obviously it would be hard to address everything), and not just what's currently overperforming in the tournament scene. And it needs to be the current game, not the one that existed 8 months ago. Which means getting away from the current method of balancing the game with printed products. Which I think was one of the points you were making?

brainpsyk wrote:

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.

It isn't a red herring. Saying Breachers will win when across the table from Intercessors ignores so much it's just absolutely unrepresentative of the games mechanics.

9 Ranger Vets do 3 wounds to Intercessors - reducing them by 20%
5 Marines do 3 wounds to Rangers - reducing them by 33%

There's a pretty big gap there. The picture is totally different if they both shoot something T3, because the weight of numbers will take over. If it wasn't for the durability buffs for Skitarii you wouldn't see them taken in large blobs. Skitarii blobs are the perfect thing to take Tau down, but there hasn't been a single game recorded for that matchup since Tau's book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
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.

I mean they could lower the price of Baneblades to like...250 or something, but then what happens to LRBTs as they automatically get crowded out? How many people here would call it a sales ploy? How many people would buy them and then get upset to find their points get jacked up later?

Or on the reverse side - do you price the new superheavies high enough to make Baneblades comparatively worthwhile, which makes those units bad compared to the rest of the codex?

That's.....pretty hyperbolic, Daed. Which isn't like you. You could definitely lower the price of Baneblades without getting them down to 250 PPM. And you could definitely give the newer LoWs a points bump that doesn't make them overpriced for their stats. At minimum, I'd say a 4 sponson Baneblade should at least be cheaper (not more expensive, which it currently is) than a Fellblade or Astraeus. And no, that doesn't mean increasing the prices for Fellblades and Astraeus, it means cutting the price for the Baneblade.

But, again, we're arguing individual unit points, which doesn't address the basic problem: gw aren't balancing the game as a whole. That's why we see these weirdly out of sync prices. They need to look at as much of the game as possible (obviously it would be hard to address everything), and not just what's currently overperforming in the tournament scene. And it needs to be the current game, not the one that existed 8 months ago. Which means getting away from the current method of balancing the game with printed products. Which I think was one of the points you were making?

Well I was just tossing a number out there that would make sense against the SS at 330 -- with no sponsons. The Baneblade would have to be pretty cheap. Even if we didn't compare to SS ( it needs a nerf of a sort ) you'd still be placing them BBs in the 300 range, which is dicey, because T8 W26 stuff en masse can get brutal.

And it still paints you into a corner for when the buffs eventually come.

It isn't ideal. I'm sure there's something they could do. I don't think there's an easy solution, but, yes -- if they took a little more care things might seem a little less stark in contrast.

The idea that GW actually playtests their game is laughable at best. I can point to you the entire last decade where the Stompa was Garbage tier. Christ, they reduced its price by 200pts this edition and its still a pile of crap. Not to mention their "Play testers" saying it would be broken with how good it was. The fact is that GW doesn't playtest, they rely on a few players to provide insight into game balance and that is about it. Sadly, unless you play one of those "play testers" favorite armies, you aren't likely to get good/balanced rules. As Jidmah said more than once, and which I totally agree, Orkz were "good" for a bit, more by accident than anything else. The fact that after numerous points adjustments for their codex and chances to fix issues they still haven't made a host of units playable/good, is more proof that they don't know what they are doing. Or do you think a Big Mek with a SAG is really worth 110pts or that Beastboss on Squigosaur is BETTER than Trajann Valoris? ATM A Beastboss on Squigosaur is 175pts, Trajann is 160pts. Let that sink in and get back to me.

Next Daed, you are incorrect in the extreme, DE is not the best way to adjust points costs. DE and AD Mech have been running away with the tournament scene for almost a year solid. Your "analysis" that they finally dropped a bit in the last week is wonderful, except we have proof that some of the top players in the world who were bringing those lists have moved on to GSC, Tau and Custards.

Mani Cheema, Brought Drukhari as recently as LVO, last 2 GT's hes played in? Custards and Nidz, he didn't play custards last year.
Malik Amin Rubio, brought Cult Mechanicus almost exclusively in 9th so far. Last GT? GSC
Nick Nanavati, last year played mostly Drukhari, this year his only GT was GSC.

And again, we are in February, as the months go by and more GTs are played I'll bet you more of those top players are migrating to the OP factions. So its less that Drukhari went down because of the nerfs and more that the top players moved over to other factions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It isn't a red herring. Saying Breachers will win when across the table from Intercessors ignores so much it's just absolutely unrepresentative of the games mechanics.

9 Ranger Vets do 3 wounds to Intercessors - reducing them by 20%
5 Marines do 3 wounds to Rangers - reducing them by 33%

There's a pretty big gap there. The picture is totally different if they both shoot something T3, because the weight of numbers will take over. If it wasn't for the durability buffs for Skitarii you wouldn't see them taken in large blobs. Skitarii blobs are the perfect thing to take Tau down, but there hasn't been a single game recorded for that matchup since Tau's book.

Distance isn't a problem in 9th, except maybe for the player going first, but even then shooting doesn't matter because player 1 is just throwing a cheap unit onto a mid-field objective to die. Having the lethality at longer range means that player can keep expensive units back while throwing cheap units onto points, while the marines have to throw expensive units onto points that just get picked up.

You're conveniently ignoring the real math. 100 points is 5 marines or 11 rangers. Those 5 marines do 3W to rangers, a 27% reduction in the Ranger's capabilities. Those 11 rangers do 4W to marines, a 40% reduction to marines capabilities, at longer range (15" for RF vs. straight 30"), with better strats and doctrinas. And that's against AdMech, which have been surpassed by Nids, Tau and Custodes.

I think you unintentionally contradicted your own point. There probably hasn't been a matchup of AdMech vs. Tau because those AdMech players have switched to better factions (Bugs, Tau and Custodes)

SemperMortis wrote:
Next Daed, you are incorrect in the extreme, DE is not the best way to adjust points costs. DE and AD Mech have been running away with the tournament scene for almost a year solid. Your "analysis" that they finally dropped a bit in the last week is wonderful, except we have proof that some of the top players in the world who were bringing those lists have moved on to GSC, Tau and Custards.

Good point.

Here's what I get when I look at only DE players who stuck with the army. The weighted average is -4.14 points.

Check the last guy who played more games this period and did way worse. Did they all catch bad matchups? That player went to Beachead and Kirtonian Carnage XIV. He won all three at KCXIV.

This DE went 2-1 vs Tau so they seem to be a competent player. I'll agree its still small data, but it still trends down.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

brainpsyk wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It isn't a red herring. Saying Breachers will win when across the table from Intercessors ignores so much it's just absolutely unrepresentative of the games mechanics.

9 Ranger Vets do 3 wounds to Intercessors - reducing them by 20%
5 Marines do 3 wounds to Rangers - reducing them by 33%

There's a pretty big gap there. The picture is totally different if they both shoot something T3, because the weight of numbers will take over. If it wasn't for the durability buffs for Skitarii you wouldn't see them taken in large blobs. Skitarii blobs are the perfect thing to take Tau down, but there hasn't been a single game recorded for that matchup since Tau's book.

Distance isn't a problem in 9th, except maybe for the player going first, but even then shooting doesn't matter because player 1 is just throwing a cheap unit onto a mid-field objective to die. Having the lethality at longer range means that player can keep expensive units back while throwing cheap units onto points, while the marines have to throw expensive units onto points that just get picked up.

You're conveniently ignoring the real math. 100 points is 5 marines or 11 rangers. Those 5 marines do 3W to rangers, a 27% reduction in the Ranger's capabilities. Those 11 rangers do 4W to marines, a 40% reduction to marines capabilities, at longer range (15" for RF vs. straight 30"), with better strats and doctrinas. And that's against AdMech, which have been surpassed by Nids, Tau and Custodes.

I think you unintentionally contradicted your own point. There probably hasn't been a matchup of AdMech vs. Tau because those AdMech players have switched to better factions (Bugs, Tau and Custodes)

You rounded up from 3.6 on that marine to kill an extra model. You also said range didn't matter, but highlighted range on the two units? You also decided to not use vets, which absolutely carry a distinct disadvantage over their counterparts so you'd actually have 9.

I've done enough of these games on this forum, so that's where I'm going to end my paticipation this part of the conversation.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You rounded up from 3.6 on that marine to kill an extra model. You also said range didn't matter, but highlighted range on the two units? You also decided to not use vets, which absolutely carry a distinct disadvantage over their counterparts so you'd actually have 9.

I've done enough of these games on this forum, so that's where I'm going to end my paticipation this part of the conversation.

You really just can't do math can you, and you're balking at your own argument.

11xSkitarii Ranger w/GalvanicRifle vs. intercessor No Mods mean: 3.7 MEDIAN=4.0 σ=1.8
5xIntercessor Bolt Rifle vs. Skitarii Ranger No Mods mean: 3.0 MEDIAN=3.0 σ=1.5

You know a median right? The value in the middle, not usually subject to outliers like the mean. FYI - It's usually better to look at the median value and Standard Deviation rather than the mean. It's fine to use the mean when it's really close to the median. For example, a weapon that does 5000 mortal wounds but has a 1-in-1000 chance of going off has a mean of 5MW, but a median of zero. Not a good weapon. Most people on the forums use an approximation of the mean, which is fine for napkin math, but not as an authority.

You're the one who brought up range as if it makes a huge difference. And, like I stated, for the most part range doesn't matter as it it's easy to get into range in 9th (I rapid fire my lasguns all the time... to no effect). However, in the few times there when it does matter, then the galvanic rifle has a much better profile, totally negating your own "but... but... range" argument.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I've done enough of these games on this forum, so that's where I'm going to end my paticipation this part of the conversation.

Good. No more hand-waving arguments.

Yep and the most common discrete result is still one marine.



What you're trying to show is the lean towards results 4+:


In other news Cherokee top 8 has just one non-Tau and non-Custodes player -- a Crusher Stampede.

To be fair, now Codex Glass D-Cannon is fully revealed, I'm left a bit non-plussed.

I feel Eldar will destroy certain casual games. But not sure its the same competitive raw power level as Tau, because everything is fairly expensive. Aspect Warriors for instance can have their 5++ - but they are going to die if looked at funny, and its a lot of points. With a lot of LOS ignoring shooting, if these guys are on the table, they are dead. Wave Sepents and Falcons are a chunk of points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yep and the most common discrete result is still one marine.
What you're trying to show is the lean towards results 4+:
In other news Cherokee top 8 has just one non-Tau and non-Custodes player -- a Crusher Stampede.

Well done :-) (Seriously, )

Now, please run the same simulation for 12 Tau Breacher fire warrriors with pulse blasters (102 points), and 5 Intercessors with Bolt Rifles (100 points) and post those results as well.

Tyel wrote:
To be fair, now Codex Glass D-Cannon is fully revealed, I'm left a bit non-plussed.

I feel Eldar will destroy certain casual games. But not sure its the same competitive raw power level as Tau, because everything is fairly expensive. Aspect Warriors for instance can have their 5++ - but they are going to die if looked at funny, and its a lot of points. With a lot of LOS ignoring shooting, if these guys are on the table, they are dead. Wave Sepents and Falcons are a chunk of points.

To be fair, I’m actually not entirely sure that the craftworld section of the codex is that scary. You’re right that everything is expensive, and it seems many things got Toned down with restrictions (lose -3 inches on battlefocus into cover, dire avengers as elites).

However, Harlequins look absurd. Light in particular gives me custodes vibes with their needing 4+ to be hit at over 12 inches away (which can be 6 inches and allow no re-rolls with certain buffs). All their units also got cheaper and better as well. And the only real nerfs they got where losing charges after double move power and only 2 fusion pistols per squad. I bet they compete better than craftworlds with custodes and Tau. Additionally, I also think they make drukhari viable again due being a “free” add.

This of course to determent of every other army.

Salt donkey wrote:

Tyel wrote:
To be fair, now Codex Glass D-Cannon is fully revealed, I'm left a bit non-plussed.

I feel Eldar will destroy certain casual games. But not sure its the same competitive raw power level as Tau, because everything is fairly expensive. Aspect Warriors for instance can have their 5++ - but they are going to die if looked at funny, and its a lot of points. With a lot of LOS ignoring shooting, if these guys are on the table, they are dead. Wave Sepents and Falcons are a chunk of points.

To be fair, I’m actually not entirely sure that the craftworld section of the codex is that scary. You’re right that everything is expensive, and it seems many things got Toned down with restrictions (lose -3 inches on battlefocus into cover, dire avengers as elites).

However, Harlequins look absurd. Light in particular gives me custodes vibes with their needing 4+ to be hit at over 12 inches away (which can be 6 inches and allow no re-rolls with certain buffs). All their units also got cheaper and better as well. And the only real nerfs they got where losing charges after double move power and only 2 fusion pistols per squad. I bet they compete better than craftworlds with custodes and Tau. Additionally, I also think they make drukhari viable again due being a “free” add.

This of course to determent of every other army.

I agree that I think Harlequins will do better than craftworlds, but they're still not up to custodes level of absurd. Being T3 alone is enough to significantly weaken them, despite having the same 4++ that custards get.

A combination of harlequins and craftworlds may well be the way to go. But anyone complaining about Eldar right now are delusional.

I think the best evidence for a lack of playtest is the current Cherokee Tournament 2022.

Top seats are I think 15 out of 20 are Tau and Custodes.

If that doesn't speak of lack of playtests(or not listening to playtesters), I don't know what is.

Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.

brainpsyk wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yep and the most common discrete result is still one marine.
What you're trying to show is the lean towards results 4+:
In other news Cherokee top 8 has just one non-Tau and non-Custodes player -- a Crusher Stampede.

Well done :-) (Seriously, )

Now, please run the same simulation for 12 Tau Breacher fire warrriors with pulse blasters (102 points), and 5 Intercessors with Bolt Rifles (100 points) and post those results as well.

Then I'd also have to do Ranger Vets and then a durability test considering they're way more durable than regular vets. Especially against something like AFPs, which have blast and avenues for more AP. We should also finally factor in that Galvanic Rifles are heavy and come with a move penalty...

And I'd still have to pretend to ignore ranges, which seems fairly obtuse considering how short ranges Breachers can be.

There's so much more to balance than just X shoots Y on planet bowling ball.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Doesn't speak to much of anything, depending upon who attended the event. There's a lot of weirdly competitive people in NC.

Yes, totally agree. A GT with 75% of the top 20 being exclusively 2 armies is definitely not anything to notice or care about.


Btw, Did you hear that orkz won a single GT where they tabled their opponent turn 2? His opponent admitted later he had no chance at all because he only had like 3 weapons which could actually hurt ork vehicles thanks to ramshackle. Better nerf the entire F*cking faction!

I think Tau are only in it because they are one of the few armies that can possible shoot and kill enough custodes on turn 1 to turn it into a good game. There are probably quite few other factions out there that can win against Tau because they can be super aggressive and do turn 1 charges. They get in turn 1, tag as much of the Tau army they can, and its an uphill climb for Tau from that point. But those types of armies would get creamed by all huge number of Custodes armies in the field right now.

Tau isn't a direct counter to Custodes, but they at least have a chance. Most other armies just fold against Custodes. Hence why you are seeing the top 8 dominated by Tau and Custodes.

The key question now is... if you want to counter Custodes, what army would you bring? They have literally zero weaknesses really. Whereas if its just Tau, Tau can be countered. You can tailor build lists against Tau. Because we know they are weak to melee and being touched in melee.

SemperMortis wrote:
Btw, Did you hear that orkz won a single GT where they tabled their opponent turn 2? His opponent admitted later he had no chance at all because he only had like 3 weapons which could actually hurt ork vehicles thanks to ramshackle. Better nerf the entire F*cking faction!

Yup, the two-facedness when dealing with different factions is very noticeable.

Ohh noes... an army I don't play is stupidly undercosted and overpowered.

Ohh noes X2 - a few new somethings have come out and a different army I dont play is now over powered and undercosted.

Holy Hell when will it stop, my army book is 3 years old and has been shelved, just because it cant compete anymore with the units I like to take.

Damnnn yeah.... did you see my new book? Bow down to your plastic army men overlords and weep . My army is going to obliterate all opposition. Muhahahahahahaha....

3 months later.... well darn it, not the best on the board anymore.

Its the same cycle for over 20 years... Nothing to see here, nothing to be done about it. This is 40K, unless someone else buys out GW with a completely different mindset that says rules over euros, it will never change. Just enjoy the ride of being top dog when its your turn, it will be fleeting.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I think Tau are only in it because they are one of the few armies that can possible shoot and kill enough custodes on turn 1 to turn it into a good game.

Ok, what are the Tau bring to accomplish this trick?
What makes you think that many other forces can't do the same?

Eldenfirefly wrote:
The key question now is... if you want to counter Custodes, what army would you bring? They have literally zero weaknesses really.

Custodes have a weakness. It's the same weakness Deathwing forces had in previous editions - low model count.

In answer to your question? I'll bring my Necrons. As is I've got (and bring) the firepower. But if I KNOW I'm facing Custodes I can further tweak my list.

ccs wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I think Tau are only in it because they are one of the few armies that can possible shoot and kill enough custodes on turn 1 to turn it into a good game.

Ok, what are the Tau bring to accomplish this trick?
What makes you think that many other forces can't do the same?

Probably just a question of being pts-efficient enough, I don't know enough about Tau or Custodes to say whether that is actually the case.

Necron anti-horde is kind of weak this edition (because of the tesla MWBD nerf), so a lot of Necron lists pack a tonne of anti-MEQ which means Necrons are theoretically in a relatively good position to deal with Custodes. If you look at old tournament stats Necrons were doing okay into Custodes, I think part of that is also that Custodes do not have a tonne of MW effects which is a Necron weakness.

So one of the biggist complaints i hear about custodes is their strats are too cheap, when they are actually appropriately costed compared to other codex's.

We pay 1 CP for the 2 defensive strats on minimum sized units (which is literally what every other codex pays) and 2CP for a larger squad.

In 8th we had to pay 2cp all the time and ran out of CP in turn 3 (back when we had 3++ saves).

Now that we lost the 3++ I dont see how its unfair that the strats got a bit cheaper?

Trajann realistically gives 4 CP over the course of a game (1 for being warlord and regenning 3). This is pretty par for the course for a 9th codex and actually much weaker than the tau (they get a CP back on a 2+ every turn).

Points-wise trajann is undercosted for sure, but raising his points by 20 wont really fix the issue as you raise another issue (that he can be chosen as a TTL target in alot of lists at 180).

Bikes themselves are fine, but salvo's need to go up in points cost.

Dreads are scary, but tau are making them obsolete so you wont see them spammed as much.

Aquilon terminators are actually OVERCOSTED currently and need some help (which is why you never see them).

Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.


There definately will be a big change in the win rates once people get used to them and if you play against people that dont roll above average you will find that custodes fold pretty quick to alot of armies.


I've currently never beat a Tau army with my custodes, and still frequently loose to orks (Speed waaaaagh army of renown is almost tau) and nids.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Custodes win-rates are good because of 2 main reasons:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.
B: People arent used to the golden boys having so many tricks.

LMAO

 Eihnlazer wrote:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.

This seems highly unlikely.

I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.

I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.

And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
A: Its likely that some of the guys going to tournaments are using weighted dice.

This seems highly unlikely.

Its easy to say that, but i've never actually seen any GT check to see if dice are weighted (other than something that happend like 12 years ago).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.

I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.

And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".

I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.

Dudeface wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.

I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.

And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".

I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.

Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.

Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think the Custodes will see an initial surge as people jump into the new hoyness and there is a run of tournaments before people adjust to deal with them as we often see with any strong book, but if that win rate doesn't start dropping soin then it's definitely a barometer that the book is too strong.

I think GW's biggest mistake in this book was listening to playtesters who said the book felt "too weak". Even at it's old points it's very well positioned in the meta and likely needs to be brought down a full level to balance it further.

And I get Custodes in the lore are basically the best thing to every see the battlefield en masse, but this has definitely been well out of bounds of anything even approaching "acceptable game balance".

I think most 40k discussion outlets were saying with a loss of the 3++ and d2 being the standard they'd suck, not just playtesters. In fact most people will still tell you d2 sucks as a weapon of choice.

Considering Marines will remain a large portion of the meta forever I fail to see how d2 could ever be bad. Less optimal at times maybe, but not bad.

Feels like a lot of knee jerk reactions that missed the mark to me.

D2 is horrible into -1 damage which is not uncommon. The trick to winning tournaments is not to be able to beat Marines. If you can beat the top armies you can beat Marines.