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.

When Space Marines have literally only 4 base units in plastic to choose from, you can compare us. When SM have to pay more than 50+ points per their new Bladeguard squad members, we can compare them. There is no equal or comparison, so please stop comparing them.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When Space Marines have literally only 4 base units in plastic to choose from, you can compare us. When SM have to pay more than 50+ points per their new Bladeguard squad members, we can compare them. There is no equal or comparison, so please stop comparing them.

You brought up the comparison to IG.

And amount of models (in plastic or not) has nothing to do with balance on the table.

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When Space Marines have literally only 4 base units in plastic to choose from, you can compare us. When SM have to pay more than 50+ points per their new Bladeguard squad members, we can compare them. There is no equal or comparison, so please stop comparing them.

You brought up the comparison to IG.

And amount of models (in plastic or not) has nothing to do with balance on the table.

Well, when your (Easily) available model range is literally 5-6 models, Nerfing our best unit is almost 20% of our game. Yes, Trajann is good, but lets be honest here. We're just the FOTM right now, and this time come June we'll be complaining about nerfing Eldar or Nerfing Tau. I think everyone is hyper focusing on one unit, that really isn't that major a problem. No one cried for Mortarian Nerfs when he was literally unkillable even by dual Hammerheads. Even two Shadowswords fail to effectively knock him down. Trajann can be killed in a single shooting phase. Or a single melee phase. He's only OP because of what he can do when on the table. The answer is very simple. Take him off the table. Then the majority of the gameplan for Custodes is toast.

He's only OP because of what he can do when on the table.

Yeah, so ignoring it until people complain about other things isn't actually a solution. Just a continued problem.

If the majority of the gameplay is 'toast' when he's removed, Custodes players should want things fixed just as much (or more) than anyone else.

 Aenar wrote:
Comparing units from different books is a pointless exercise.

No.

You could drop intercessors to 10 ppm and raise the points of something else (like all characters) to perfectly counteract that and the lists would be identical.

No.

What matters is the external balance between books as a whole, not the balance 1:1 for every single unit inside them.

Right, but external balance is decided by lists taken. Points costs of units will determine what units and how many units are in lists. Like if Intercessors were 10 ppm you'd see a lot of lists with 60+ Intercessors and assuming Characters were overpriced then people would just take as few characters as possible to go with their undercosted Intercessors. Lists that do well into Intercessor spam might be as good or better than before and lists that do poorly against Intercessor spam would do worse.

Trajann looks cheap when compared to other characters in other books, but he could still cost 160 pts and be balanced.

I think you'd need a very specific set of circumstances for that to be true. Assuming #1 other factions don't change #2 Custodes get pts costs that move them down to a 55% win rate #3 Trajann at 160 is not an autoinclude in competitive lists is a hard pill to swallow for me. Theoretically I agree, but in practical terms I don't buy it.

If Trajann or Intercessors are auto-includes then that's a problem, even if the army has a healthy win-rate in tournaments because people do or don't run the efficient units. It would also be possible for an army to underperform because too many people don't run the autoinclude units, like if they were expensive FW units. The overall army might have a 55% win rate, but GW lists have a 40% win rate and FW lists have a 70% win rate, that's not healthy at all. GW could continue nerfing the GW units to keep the army at a 55% win rate as more and more people drop the army or move over to using FW units until a small minority of players have a 10% win rate with GW units while the FW units keep pulling their 70% win rate.

Custodes should get an across-the-board 10% hike in a hotfix patch to start things off in compensation for their new Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines, then GW can further nerf their most popular units by 10% in the next CA. Better yet, remove Combat Doctrines and Chapter Tactics from Custodes in the next balance whatever the heck they call it. Bloat for the bloat god, writers justifying their existence by continually changing the game to require more work to maintain and balance.

Basic troops like intercessors as auto includes is not a problem if taken in healthy numbers. Spamming 40+ of them might be.

How can 5-10 intercessors in every possible SM list be considered a problem?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When Space Marines have literally only 4 base units in plastic to choose from, you can compare us. When SM have to pay more than 50+ points per their new Bladeguard squad members, we can compare them. There is no equal or comparison, so please stop comparing them.

You brought up the comparison to IG.

And amount of models (in plastic or not) has nothing to do with balance on the table.

Well, when your (Easily) available model range is literally 5-6 models, Nerfing our best unit is almost 20% of our game. Yes, Trajann is good, but lets be honest here. We're just the FOTM right now, and this time come June we'll be complaining about nerfing Eldar or Nerfing Tau. I think everyone is hyper focusing on one unit, that really isn't that major a problem. No one cried for Mortarian Nerfs when he was literally unkillable even by dual Hammerheads. Even two Shadowswords fail to effectively knock him down. Trajann can be killed in a single shooting phase. Or a single melee phase. He's only OP because of what he can do when on the table. The answer is very simple. Take him off the table. Then the majority of the gameplan for Custodes is toast.

The number of plastic kits that comprise your army is not something that should have any effect on balance decisions. It's really weird to insist it should. Not as weird as suggesting a model is only OP when he's actually being used though.

Custodes may just be the FOTM army right now and Eldar may end up being equally or more busted. That's still not a reason to leave Custodes as they are. Even if Eldar turn out to be more broken than Custodes that doesn't help anyone playing any of the other armies when they come up against the still-busted Custodes. Pointing at another army and claiming everything's fine because you're not as broken as them is spectacularly missing the point.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
When Space Marines have literally only 4 base units in plastic to choose from, you can compare us. When SM have to pay more than 50+ points per their new Bladeguard squad members, we can compare them. There is no equal or comparison, so please stop comparing them.

You brought up the comparison to IG.

And amount of models (in plastic or not) has nothing to do with balance on the table.

Well, when your (Easily) available model range is literally 5-6 models, Nerfing our best unit is almost 20% of our game. Yes, Trajann is good, but lets be honest here. We're just the FOTM right now, and this time come June we'll be complaining about nerfing Eldar or Nerfing Tau. I think everyone is hyper focusing on one unit, that really isn't that major a problem. No one cried for Mortarian Nerfs when he was literally unkillable even by dual Hammerheads. Even two Shadowswords fail to effectively knock him down. Trajann can be killed in a single shooting phase. Or a single melee phase. He's only OP because of what he can do when on the table. The answer is very simple. Take him off the table. Then the majority of the gameplan for Custodes is toast.

The difference with Mortarion is that Death Guard wasn't curb stomping the meta dead. They were strong, but not next level strong.

However, Custodes are OP as a package deal and it is quite literally destroying the meta along with their fish-siblings, the Tau. We never saw that with Death Guard, and it wasn't until Drukhari came along that we saw the first meta killing codexes.

 Blackie wrote:
Basic troops like intercessors as auto includes is not a problem if taken in healthy numbers. Spamming 40+ of them might be.

How can 5-10 intercessors in every possible SM list be considered a problem?

You are silly if you think people would bring no more than 10 Intercessors at 10 PPM.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Basic troops like intercessors as auto includes is not a problem if taken in healthy numbers. Spamming 40+ of them might be.

How can 5-10 intercessors in every possible SM list be considered a problem?

You are silly if you think people would bring no more than 10 Intercessors at 10 PPM.

Of course, 10ppm intercessors would be a problem. My point was a basic troop is not a problem if it is auto include in any possible list as long as numbers of the models stay healthy. I'm not against the idea of having intercessors as auto includes, I actually think basic troop choices should be incentivized. If 5-20 intercessors show up pretty much everytime that's not a problem.

I'm against spamming stuff instead, not just troops, and in that case I agree with you.

 Blackie wrote:


Of course, 10ppm intercessors would be a problem.

Intercessors only sure, but I'd like to see what lists look like if all or almost all troops units are 25% - 50% off - probably need some sort of mechanic to keep people from doing 3 empty Tac Squads i.e., you only get the discount on max size units, or something. Blobs of 30 boyz for 135 points or 7PL? 10 Heavy Intercessors for 7PL or 140points? Unit upgrades like Heavy Bolters, or Guardian Weapon Platforms etc. should probably still be full price above the half price bodies. Combine that with the variable cost strats being cheaper for max size instead of the other way around, and it could push people into taking more BLAST-able units.

Breton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Of course, 10ppm intercessors would be a problem.

Intercessors only sure, but I'd like to see what lists look like if all or almost all troops units are 25% - 50% off - probably need some sort of mechanic to keep people from doing 3 empty Tac Squads i.e., you only get the discount on max size units, or something. Blobs of 30 boyz for 135 points or 7PL? 10 Heavy Intercessors for 7PL or 140points? Unit upgrades like Heavy Bolters, or Guardian Weapon Platforms etc. should probably still be full price above the half price bodies. Combine that with the variable cost strats being cheaper for max size instead of the other way around, and it could push people into taking more BLAST-able units.

You could just make it an elites choice or make 3 unique named units.

Again, comparing single units is pointless.

Trajann could cost 5 points (FIVE) and be (externally) balanced if the resulting Custodes lists were (externally) balanced (ie 45-55% wr) across the field.
The internal balance of the Custodes book in this example would be bad, as every single list would include him. But that's an internal balance issue.

As for external balance, across different factions, both the point costs of individual units and their comparison are pointless. What matters is the end result, the balance that comes out of lists as a whole, especially now that we have the rule of three.
You don't play 2000 pts of Intercessors vs 2000 pts of Tyranid Warriors, you play 2000 pts of SM vs 2000 pts of Tyranids.

I still can't fathom why you think internal balance has no effect on external balance (especially when so many changes to the metagame over 30 years demonstrate otherwise).

Or why you think simply stating 'it is so' over and over again is convincing.

 Aenar wrote:
Again, comparing single units is pointless.

Trajann could cost 5 points (FIVE) and be (externally) balanced if the resulting Custodes lists were (externally) balanced (ie 45-55% wr) across the field.
The internal balance of the Custodes book in this example would be bad, as every single list would include him. But that's an internal balance issue.

As for external balance, across different factions, both the point costs of individual units and their comparison are pointless. What matters is the end result, the balance that comes out of lists as a whole, especially now that we have the rule of three.
You don't play 2000 pts of Intercessors vs 2000 pts of Tyranid Warriors, you play 2000 pts of SM vs 2000 pts of Tyranids.

Absolutely agree, though if the points are off by too much the bad internal balance tends to become an external balance issue. Trajan is kind of safe here since he can't be spammed, but if something else is too much below the curve costwise, it tends to warp the game in one way or another. If a unit is above the curve but part of the army's backbone, it tends to drag the whole army down.

On the other hand, on this forum people tend to compare a unit that is overperforming to units which are underperforming, which is almost always a useless discussion. In a perfect world, units should be neither one or the other.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
Again, comparing single units is pointless.

Trajann could cost 5 points (FIVE) and be (externally) balanced if the resulting Custodes lists were (externally) balanced (ie 45-55% wr) across the field.
The internal balance of the Custodes book in this example would be bad, as every single list would include him. But that's an internal balance issue.

As for external balance, across different factions, both the point costs of individual units and their comparison are pointless. What matters is the end result, the balance that comes out of lists as a whole, especially now that we have the rule of three.
You don't play 2000 pts of Intercessors vs 2000 pts of Tyranid Warriors, you play 2000 pts of SM vs 2000 pts of Tyranids.

Absolutely agree, though if the points are off by too much the bad internal balance tends to become an external balance issue. Trajan is kind of safe here since he can't be spammed, but if something else is too much below the curve costwise, it tends to warp the game in one way or another.

That's why good listbuilding restrictions are necessary. But unfortunately, those seem to disappear more and more.

 Dolnikan wrote:

That's why good listbuilding restrictions are necessary. But unfortunately, those seem to disappear more and more.

What lol? Listbuilding restrictions are increasing if anything.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Well, when your (Easily) available model range is literally 5-6 models, Nerfing our best unit is almost 20% of our game. Yes, Trajann is good, but lets be honest here. We're just the FOTM right now, and this time come June we'll be complaining about nerfing Eldar or Nerfing Tau. I think everyone is hyper focusing on one unit, that really isn't that major a problem. No one cried for Mortarian Nerfs when he was literally unkillable even by dual Hammerheads. Even two Shadowswords fail to effectively knock him down. Trajann can be killed in a single shooting phase. Or a single melee phase. He's only OP because of what he can do when on the table. The answer is very simple. Take him off the table. Then the majority of the gameplan for Custodes is toast.

As mentioned, Deathguard weren't running away with the tournament scene like Custards are right now. When Custards are taking the majority of top 8 finishes in tournaments there is a problem. And no, I am not picking on Custards, or marines or insert random faction here. I have said the exact same thing about Ad-Mech and Drukhari.

As to your first sentence, no. Nerfing Trajann to be more realistic of a price wouldn't be nerfing 20% of your game, it would be a 30(ish) point hike which is about the max GW would do, and since you aren't orkz, its likely you won't get 30pts, you'll get 10-15. And what does that realistically do? Maybe you lose 1 model or a few upgrades. But the fact that people defend a model which has better buffing rules/abilities than girlyman who is more than twice the price is a bit ridiculous.

 Aenar wrote:
Again, comparing single units is pointless.

Trajann could cost 5 points (FIVE) and be (externally) balanced if the resulting Custodes lists were (externally) balanced (ie 45-55% wr) across the field.
The internal balance of the Custodes book in this example would be bad, as every single list would include him. But that's an internal balance issue.

As for external balance, across different factions, both the point costs of individual units and their comparison are pointless. What matters is the end result, the balance that comes out of lists as a whole, especially now that we have the rule of three.
You don't play 2000 pts of Intercessors vs 2000 pts of Tyranid Warriors, you play 2000 pts of SM vs 2000 pts of Tyranids.

Comparing single units is not pointless. It shows a power imbalance between similar units across multiple factions. And yeah, Trajann could be 5ppm and be balanced if Custards were pathetic and massively over priced in every other unit, but since those units themselves are under priced its a cascading effect which leads to Custards taking 4 of the top 8, 5 of the top 10 6 of the top 12 and 8 of the top 15 placings at Cherokee GT The only faction which stood against them realistically was Tau who swept the top 3, and yes, people are calling for them to be nerfed as well.

 Dolnikan wrote:
That's why good listbuilding restrictions are necessary. But unfortunately, those seem to disappear more and more.

List building restrictions mitigate the issue, but they don't solve it. No matter how tight your restrictions are, if one army can bring more overperforming units than another, external balance will suffer.
On the flip side, restrictions will absolutely ruin armies which don't have enough choices to mitigate underperforming datasheets in their army. For example, if you would force everyone to bring more troops drukhari and marines won't care, but orks would be boned.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
That's why good listbuilding restrictions are necessary. But unfortunately, those seem to disappear more and more.

List building restrictions mitigate the issue, but they don't solve it. No matter how tight your restrictions are, if one army can bring more overperforming units than another, external balance will suffer.
On the flip side, restrictions will absolutely ruin armies which don't have enough choices to mitigate underperforming datasheets in their army. For example, if you would force everyone to bring more troops drukhari and marines won't care, but orks would be boned.

That indeed is a problem. But it does help with creating a kind of balancing baseline that currently is very absent from the game.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

That's why good listbuilding restrictions are necessary. But unfortunately, those seem to disappear more and more.

What lol? Listbuilding restrictions are increasing if anything.

Really? We have multiple detachments of all kinds. You can very easily have an army of a few HQs and then spam whatever kind of unit/slot is exceptionally good in an army. With the old FOC you were forced into more things and really couldn't take more than a few of whatever kind of unit an army was exceptional at.

Custodes and Tau can build OP lists using a FOC. It is fun that you think that armies are limited to only having good units in one battlefield role.

Slipspace 803732 11321886 wrote: Custodes may just be the FOTM army right now and Eldar may end up being equally or more busted. That's still not a reason to leave Custodes as they are. Even if Eldar turn out to be more broken than Custodes that doesn't help anyone playing any of the other armies when they come up against the still-busted Custodes. Pointing at another army and claiming everything's fine because you're not as broken as them is spectacularly missing the point.

It is still better to have tau and custodes to be the best armies, then have eldar at the top. Look what happened when ad mecha and orks got nerfed, alongside sisters. DE shot back up to 60%+ win rates in an instant. Any army which keeps eldar win rates down, till at least 10th ed should stay the way it is right now.

Karol wrote:

Slipspace 803732 11321886 wrote: Custodes may just be the FOTM army right now and Eldar may end up being equally or more busted. That's still not a reason to leave Custodes as they are. Even if Eldar turn out to be more broken than Custodes that doesn't help anyone playing any of the other armies when they come up against the still-busted Custodes. Pointing at another army and claiming everything's fine because you're not as broken as them is spectacularly missing the point.

It is still better to have tau and custodes to be the best armies, then have eldar at the top. Look what happened when ad mecha and orks got nerfed, alongside sisters. DE shot back up to 60%+ win rates in an instant. Any army which keeps eldar win rates down, till at least 10th ed should stay the way it is right now.

oh, you're back with your eldar hating lol.

DE != eldar btw

and DE shot back up because GW was dumb and buffed Covens when they nerfed the rest.

 vict0988 wrote:
Custodes and Tau can build OP lists using a FOC. It is fun that you think that armies are limited to only having good units in one battlefield role.

Of course, having an FOC doesn't stop armies from being OP, but it's another balancing tool that can dampen the effect of some imbalances in the game.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Custodes and Tau can build OP lists using a FOC. It is fun that you think that armies are limited to only having good units in one battlefield role.

Of course, having an FOC doesn't stop armies from being OP, but it's another balancing tool that can dampen the effect of some imbalances in the game.

not really, giving each unit a stat that dictates how many copies you can bring would be better IMO, the FoC/Detachment system is the most annoying version of listbuilding any wargame i've played has

Karol wrote:

Slipspace 803732 11321886 wrote: Custodes may just be the FOTM army right now and Eldar may end up being equally or more busted. That's still not a reason to leave Custodes as they are. Even if Eldar turn out to be more broken than Custodes that doesn't help anyone playing any of the other armies when they come up against the still-busted Custodes. Pointing at another army and claiming everything's fine because you're not as broken as them is spectacularly missing the point.

It is still better to have tau and custodes to be the best armies, then have eldar at the top. Look what happened when ad mecha and orks got nerfed, alongside sisters. DE shot back up to 60%+ win rates in an instant. Any army which keeps eldar win rates down, till at least 10th ed should stay the way it is right now.

I take it you are not playing at all these days, because the current meta with Tau, Custodes, and Crusher Stampede, is not fun at all and I play Sisters and Death Guard(well, DG is now permanently shelved until 10th edition). A lot of armies I find even footing with, but you bring the Terrible Three and you can almost just forfeit first turn and get some icecream.

 Blackie wrote:
Basic troops like intercessors as auto includes is not a problem if taken in healthy numbers. Spamming 40+ of them might be.

How can 5-10 intercessors in every possible SM list be considered a problem?

Nobody was saying 5-10 intercessors would be. Try to keep up.

I think the issue is partly that we are trying to be nice (or "reasonable").

30 points on Trajann and 10 points on a bike is the "softly softly" approach. Akin to the first (largely unsuccessful) round of DE Nerfs.

Given full vent, Trajann would go to something like 50 points and other characters would go up 10-20 points. Bikes would be up 15, all the infantry would be up 5 points a model, and Forgeworld stuff would get an arbitrary 20% hike because screw Forgeworld that's why. You'd then hike all the 1 CP stratagems to 2 CP, and nerf Emperor's Chosen and Shadowkeepers just in case.

At that point I think Custodes would have about a 45% win rate and could maybe be accepted back into civilized society.

Rather than a faction running a 60-65% win rate, that pushes 70% if you take out losses to Tau (who are equally busted, and should get an equally severe points hike).

Playing vs DE at their peak was way more enjoyable than the Tau and Custodes lists now.

At least it felt like a game of 40k, just one side was playing with about 200 extra points.

Tau and Custodes feel like they're playing with 300 extra points and also are just nullifying core game and army mechanics, very much like Admech and Orks were doing before they got reigned in.

I think the gap between player skill is at an all time high, which is the root of this frustration. Good players rather say, "Its the codex" instead of breaking down the true reasons why the lesser skilled player lost. "Its the codex" is an easier pill for the lesser skilled player to swallow and the good player doesn't want to come off as a jerk so they agree. Better choices lead to victory but when the choices are to buy all the new good stuff vs the cool looking things I want to go on the table the result is predetermined