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.
CKO wrote: 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
its been my experience its the exact opposite. Its the poorly skilled player who buys all the cheese lists and then loses and complains that their faction is under powered and that your army is OP.
In 7th I ran into a small group of TFG players in Florida. They were all friends with the owner of the store and got discounts from him. None of them played Eldar before 7th but somehow all of them were running Double Wraithknight and Scatbike spam. Well fast forward to a local tournament i played in with my Orkz who were at the time perceived as the WORST codex in the edition. I beat 1 of the guys in the opening rounds and then in the last round I faced off against another one of them. Turn 1 I dropped Box cars on my SAG Big Mek and he 1 shot a wraithknight and a host of Scatbikes, the player almost flipped the table, screamed about how brokenly OP Orkz were, and how the SAG was easily 100% under priced etc etc etc.
If you understand orkz you know how horribly under powered we were in 7th, and you would realize that the chances of a SAG doing anything in a game was minor. So in reality, it was the bad player who picked up the FOTM and lost and blamed army power instead of his own inability or bad luck.
Ordana wrote: "While still making all the money" is not relevant to the discussion I believe.
I have never seen any actual evidence that imbalance = profit. For every FOTM player rushing to buy Tau there are other people that stop buying new stuff or stop playing all together because their army has been creeped into being dogshit.
WHFB had really bad balance in the run up to its death. Don't think that helped profit.
More factions being able to compete and more units being 'good' is not going to hurt GW's bottom line.
Toning down the game so armies aren't getting tabled in turn 2-3 so we can actually play with the models we bough isn't going to hurt GW's bottom line.
You have a rather large group of players, at least several thousand, who bounce between FOTM armies. You really only know about the big ones, but for every big one you know there were 5-10 small ones you didn't remember because they didn't have the skill to top the lists. And on top of that, for every guy like that you have a handful of similar players at their local stores. I know of a couple players just in my area who routinely switch armies during an edition and buy several thousand dollars worth of models every year.
Daedalus81 wrote: Well, they need to put out fewer books. They can't handle this pace. And frankly the pace is kind of nuts right now. Custodes, GSC, Tau, Nids, and Eldar in 3 months. CSM won't be far behind. Orks seem like a distant memory, but they were just 6 months ago. There's just no way for them to write it all without tripping over themselves.
People say they should have done a get you by supplement, but what would that look like exactly? GW likely has no roadmap for incoming mechanics and so such a book would be useless. Simply making all the other armies cheaper based on unknown info is also really bad for the player and collecting.
The best scenario is that they recognize the nature of the releases and quickly address issues - ideally in a digital ruleset.
They need to hire people who actually know wtf they are doing, and if they are overwhelmed, then instead of pushing out a poor product but have massive profits, maybe they should hire more people and expand and lower their profit threshold temporarily for increased profits later on? Or, and god help me this might be a stroke of genius (Sarcasm) they could just do what everyone else is and go digital so they can cut the lag time from months to days. but hey whatever.
I think the best way to create balance, and avoid power creep is to have consistency. Even if it means, say, mini-buffs non faction units. For instance:
New SM codex comes out in august of 2025 (Hypothetical) and they have a new Plasma statline for base non special plasma guns. It's now S6 D1 for normal and S7 3dam for overcharge. All base level plasma weapons should then get that profile. even non-SM ones.
They did it for some weapons when 9th first dropped, Melta if I recall correctly. All baseline melta weapons became 3+d3. I thought that was a great way to base elevate everyone, and make sure no one faction was completely bonkers. But then they did a hard u-turn from that design style, with making every stupid weapon a Specialized named weapon. Cogni-lascannons, or x9000 SUPER Plasma, or whatever Autocannon the dumb flyers have. Either you let everyone play with the toys, which is GOOD and creates relative balance, or you make every stupid unit a special snowflake with special guns, and you create worlds of inherent imbalance. They still haven't figured out who gets "combat deployment" on transports, which is silly.
Also, we need to go back to USRs. Make everyone play by the same rules.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think the best way to create balance, and avoid power creep is to have consistency. Even if it means, say, mini-buffs non faction units. For instance:
New SM codex comes out in august of 2025 (Hypothetical) and they have a new Plasma statline for base non special plasma guns. It's now S6 D1 for normal and S7 3dam for overcharge. All base level plasma weapons should then get that profile. even non-SM ones.
They did it for some weapons when 9th first dropped, Melta if I recall correctly. All baseline melta weapons became 3+d3. I thought that was a great way to base elevate everyone, and make sure no one faction was completely bonkers. But then they did a hard u-turn from that design style, with making every stupid weapon a Specialized named weapon. Cogni-lascannons, or x9000 SUPER Plasma, or whatever Autocannon the dumb flyers have. Either you let everyone play with the toys, which is GOOD and creates relative balance, or you make every stupid unit a special snowflake with special guns, and you create worlds of inherent imbalance. They still haven't figured out who gets "combat deployment" on transports, which is silly.
Also, we need to go back to USRs. Make everyone play by the same rules.
Yeah, they did change all meltas at the beggining of 9th.. But not guns that acted like meltas yet werent called "Meltagun" (fusion guns for one)
100% we need to go back to a limited set of USRs and stick to them. (also we need to implement them in a smart way) I just play OnePageRules nowadays, its got that exact kind of clean and simple ruleset.
Yeah the melta changes actually highlight issues with GW's design. Unless you were using an Imperial issue Melta weapon your stats didn't actually get updated.
Eihnlazer wrote: worry not about that as the new fusion guns are always in melta range even if it was a delayed update. At least the harlequin fusion pistols are.
which was a mistake IMO.
Fire dragons getting rerolls was their "buffed melta", we didnt need to make them better
SemperMortis wrote: You have a rather large group of players, at least several thousand, who bounce between FOTM armies. You really only know about the big ones, but for every big one you know there were 5-10 small ones you didn't remember because they didn't have the skill to top the lists. And on top of that, for every guy like that you have a handful of similar players at their local stores. I know of a couple players just in my area who routinely switch armies during an edition and buy several thousand dollars worth of models every year.
But do they buy it from GW though - or do they swap them with people or scrounge them up off Ebay?
There was a debate about this in another thread - but I think GW's revenue is rooted mainly two million or so people spending £150~ a year.
I mean say there were 5000 players who blow £1000 every year (which I feel is a bit crazy - and if maintained over a few years would give you about 6~ armies). That's £5m of revenue. Of GW's... £350m last year?
I'm not convinced they'd overly care. Or certainly not enough to warp the whole game around them.
I think the issue is more likely to be that there's no such as "bad publicity". There's lots of talking about Custodes and Tau. There's not very much about say GSC.
I'm not convinced its a great thing - because it leads to "40k is a broken game, don't play it". But Codexes which drop with a whimper are probably a failure.
I think the issues with Custodes and Tau are easy to explain. Custodes were going to be terrible without their 3++ (see: the internet). Tau just "couldn't work" in 9th (Internet again). So they got compensating buff after compensating buff. And consequently they went far too far and they are busted as compared with the competition.
I'd argue "we want DE to be an assault-focused army" had the same. Everything had to be buffed up and dead cheap - or it would continue to be faction: Venom Spam+friends forever.
Eihnlazer wrote: worry not about that as the new fusion guns are always in melta range even if it was a delayed update. At least the harlequin fusion pistols are.
which was a mistake IMO.
Fire dragons getting rerolls was their "buffed melta", we didnt need to make them better
Based on Eldar performance over the past 18 months, it's clear that we indeed did need to make Fire Dragon Meltas better
Eihnlazer wrote: worry not about that as the new fusion guns are always in melta range even if it was a delayed update. At least the harlequin fusion pistols are.
which was a mistake IMO.
Fire dragons getting rerolls was their "buffed melta", we didnt need to make them better
Based on Eldar performance over the past 18 months, it's clear that we indeed did need to make Fire Dragon Meltas better
we did, they got T4, a reworked battle focus, new craftworld attributes and new exarch powers....
the gun itself shouldnt have been changed, make the platform better instead
Eihnlazer wrote: worry not about that as the new fusion guns are always in melta range even if it was a delayed update. At least the harlequin fusion pistols are.
which was a mistake IMO.
Fire dragons getting rerolls was their "buffed melta", we didnt need to make them better
Based on Eldar performance over the past 18 months, it's clear that we indeed did need to make Fire Dragon Meltas better
we did, they got T4, a reworked battle focus, new craftworld attributes and new exarch powers....
the gun itself shouldnt have been changed, make the platform better instead
I don't mean to derail the thread, but I don't agree. Eldar didn't need maximal power creep to be viable (and honestly, I don't think their new codex could be called "maximal power creep" in a world with Tau and Custodes), but Fire Dragons did need something to make them better at their job. Increasing damage is not always a bad thing -- it's just been increased too much in many books. I'm not sure the Fire Dragon damage increase was too much but I could be wrong.
Eihnlazer wrote: worry not about that as the new fusion guns are always in melta range even if it was a delayed update. At least the harlequin fusion pistols are.
which was a mistake IMO.
Fire dragons getting rerolls was their "buffed melta", we didnt need to make them better
Based on Eldar performance over the past 18 months, it's clear that we indeed did need to make Fire Dragon Meltas better
we did, they got T4, a reworked battle focus, new craftworld attributes and new exarch powers....
the gun itself shouldnt have been changed, make the platform better instead
I don't mean to derail the thread, but I don't agree. Eldar didn't need maximal power creep to be viable (and honestly, I don't think their new codex could be called "maximal power creep" in a world with Tau and Custodes), but Fire Dragons did need something to make them better at their job. Increasing damage is not always a bad thing -- it's just been increased too much in many books. I'm not sure the Fire Dragon damage increase was too much but I could be wrong.
its probably not too much when compared to all the damage creep everywhere but its still part of the damage creep, therefore part of the problem.
I still have yet to understand how Custodes gaining the same free rules every other army has been getting is considered power creep.
I mean the win rates dont lie, but that is actually all custodes got in their new dex. Shield hosts and ka'tah's. Bikes got +1w and lost obsec. Salvo launchers damage got more reliable but they lost reroll wounds vs vehicles. Wardens got cheaper and bodyguard but lost their deny on a 3+. All characters got +1w and a except for vexilla which only got +1w. All 3++ saves were taken away except for a one turn relic. Our strats got recosted to be more inline with other 9th books. Our faction specific secondaries are Mehhhh.
As far as datasheets go we were one of the least changed codex's in 9th.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Eihnlazer wrote: I still have yet to understand how Custodes gaining the same free rules every other army has been getting is considered power creep.
I mean the win rates dont lie, but that is actually all custodes got in their new dex. Shield hosts and ka'tah's. Bikes got +1w and lost obsec. Salvo launchers damage got more reliable but they lost reroll wounds vs vehicles. Wardens got cheaper and bodyguard but lost their deny on a 3+. All characters got +1w and a except for vexilla which only got +1w. All 3++ saves were taken away except for a one turn relic. Our strats got recosted to be more inline with other 9th books. Our faction specific secondaries are Mehhhh.
As far as datasheets go we were one of the least changed codex's in 9th.
you're looking at the datasheet, the power is in the stratagems as far as i understand. (I legit havnt looked at the codex since theyre one that interests me the least and no one locally plays them)
Plus, Custodes were already an A- tier faction. Yes, there's nothing revolutionary about the type of buffs they got, but they were already at a high baseline (especially from a datasheet perspective). And some of the buffs (the 4+++ from EC, for instance), specifically plugged their biggest hole as a faction. Silly example, but if Tau had a Sept that gave them +2 to hit in melee (in addition to other buffs), it would still be "just baseline" but it would obviously shore up one of the faction's biggest weaknesses. It makes more sense to look at the rules themselves than the rule category.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/08 17:14:10
Meanwhile Lascannons, Lastalons, Krak Missiles, SuperKraks, Hunter Killer/Slayer, Melta Weapons, KMKs, Smashaguns, Rupture Canons, Quake Cannons, Stormwind Seige Canons, Vanquisher Battle Canons, etc. stayed D6 instead of being changed to D3+3 in a Chapter Approved.
I am of the mind that they shouldn't.
The problem becomes availability of weapons. Marines can push a ton of lascannons into a list. I imagine people would not enjoy Iron Hands drop pods pushing 15 D3+3 shots ( 6 of them at BS2 ) with RR1s for 38 to 40 points per shot as compared to a Ravager who gets them at 43 points a shot and the much softer Scourges at 30 a shot.
Throw a LT in the spare pod space for gaks and giggles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/08 17:19:00
Meanwhile Lascannons, Lastalons, Krak Missiles, SuperKraks, Hunter Killer/Slayer, Melta Weapons, KMKs, Smashaguns, Rupture Canons, Quake Cannons, Stormwind Seige Canons, Vanquisher Battle Canons, etc. stayed D6 instead of being changed to D3+3 in a Chapter Approved.
I am of the mind that they shouldn't.
The problem becomes availability of weapons. Marines can push a ton of lascannons into a list. I imagine people would not enjoy Iron Hands drop pods pushing 15 D3+3 shots ( 6 of them at BS2 ) with RR1s for 38 to 40 points per shot as compared to a Ravager who gets them at 43 points a shot and the much softer Scourges at 30 a shot.
Throw a LT in the spare pod space for gaks and giggles.
what if we could restrict how many heavy/special weapons one could bring in a list? Lets say you have 200 "special weapons points" that you can bring in a list, you could bring 30 tacticals if you wanted to, but you'd cap your points quickly
Daedalus81 wrote: That probably makes list building cumbersome and more difficult to validate.
Infinity does it and it's pretty trivial. You have a points allowance and a SWC ("support weapons cost") allowance, every loadout has a points cost and a SWC cost, and your list is limited by both points and SWC. Honestly it'd be a more logical way of restricting current 40k than the current detachment system, which is so bad at restricting players just spamming the best units that they keep having to add more "no duplicates" rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/08 18:15:56
If previously D6 damage weapons have been changed to 3+D3 damage "because D6 is too random and players hate it" then it feels like this should have been a universal change.
You could even just make Lascannons flat 4 damage and save everyone a needless dice roll.
You would need to rebalance the points accordingly - but I don't think that's beyond the wit of man.
Tyel wrote: If previously D6 damage weapons have been changed to 3+D3 damage "because D6 is too random and players hate it" then it feels like this should have been a universal change.
You could even just make Lascannons flat 4 damage and save everyone a needless dice roll.
You would need to rebalance the points accordingly - but I don't think that's beyond the wit of man.
Well, I suppose 2D3 would be an appropriate compromise. GW likes the drama of the D6, I think.
Meanwhile Lascannons, Lastalons, Krak Missiles, SuperKraks, Hunter Killer/Slayer, Melta Weapons, KMKs, Smashaguns, Rupture Canons, Quake Cannons, Stormwind Seige Canons, Vanquisher Battle Canons, etc. stayed D6 instead of being changed to D3+3 in a Chapter Approved.
I am of the mind that they shouldn't.
The problem becomes availability of weapons. Marines can push a ton of lascannons into a list. I imagine people would not enjoy Iron Hands drop pods pushing 15 D3+3 shots ( 6 of them at BS2 ) with RR1s for 38 to 40 points per shot as compared to a Ravager who gets them at 43 points a shot and the much softer Scourges at 30 a shot.
Throw a LT in the spare pod space for gaks and giggles.
If they aren't playing with Multi-Melta in Drop Pods, what makes you think they'd shift to Lascannons with more reliable damage?
Eihnlazer wrote: I still have yet to understand how Custodes gaining the same free rules every other army has been getting is considered power creep.
I mean the win rates dont lie, but that is actually all custodes got in their new dex. Shield hosts and ka'tah's. Bikes got +1w and lost obsec. Salvo launchers damage got more reliable but they lost reroll wounds vs vehicles. Wardens got cheaper and bodyguard but lost their deny on a 3+. All characters got +1w and a except for vexilla which only got +1w. All 3++ saves were taken away except for a one turn relic. Our strats got recosted to be more inline with other 9th books. Our faction specific secondaries are Mehhhh.
As far as datasheets go we were one of the least changed codex's in 9th.
1 CP turn off all re-rolls against a unit.
4++ against Mortals (their biggest weakness)
Power in 9th edition goes a lot beyond just a stat line and point cost.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/08 18:59:33
EviscerationPlague wrote: If they aren't playing with Multi-Melta in Drop Pods, what makes you think they'd shift to Lascannons with more reliable damage?
Lascannons don't require being within 12" and in range of counter fire from strats.
MM pods still occasionally see play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/08 19:06:26
Daedalus81 wrote: That probably makes list building cumbersome and more difficult to validate.
Infinity does it and it's pretty trivial. You have a points allowance and a SWC ("support weapons cost") allowance, every loadout has a points cost and a SWC cost, and your list is limited by both points and SWC. Honestly it'd be a more logical way of restricting current 40k than the current detachment system, which is so bad at restricting players just spamming the best units that they keep having to add more "no duplicates" rules.
thats what i was referring to (while trying to not mention infinity since people on here tend to assume its a trash game that has zero good ideas)
Daedalus81 wrote: That probably makes list building cumbersome and more difficult to validate.
Infinity does it and it's pretty trivial. You have a points allowance and a SWC ("support weapons cost") allowance, every loadout has a points cost and a SWC cost, and your list is limited by both points and SWC. Honestly it'd be a more logical way of restricting current 40k than the current detachment system, which is so bad at restricting players just spamming the best units that they keep having to add more "no duplicates" rules.
thats what i was referring to (while trying to not mention infinity since people on here tend to assume its a trash game that has zero good ideas)
Eh. Those people tend to assume that all games other than as-written 9th are trash with zero good ideas and that there 's no reason to change anything about 9th because that'd only make it worse, carefully not mentioning the name of the other game isn't going to help.
EviscerationPlague wrote: If they aren't playing with Multi-Melta in Drop Pods, what makes you think they'd shift to Lascannons with more reliable damage?
Lascannons don't require being within 12" and in range of counter fire from strats.
MM pods still occasionally see play.
If Lascannons don't require being within 12" why are you talking about Drop Pods with them? If you're gonna Drop Pod, the Multi-Melta does significantly more.
EviscerationPlague wrote: If they aren't playing with Multi-Melta in Drop Pods, what makes you think they'd shift to Lascannons with more reliable damage?
Lascannons don't require being within 12" and in range of counter fire from strats.
MM pods still occasionally see play.
If Lascannons don't require being within 12" why are you talking about Drop Pods with them? If you're gonna Drop Pod, the Multi-Melta does significantly more.
(shrugs) Keeps them safe for a round or so of fire & lets you position them where needed, & with the longer range you can't necessarily be screened out.
EviscerationPlague wrote: If they aren't playing with Multi-Melta in Drop Pods, what makes you think they'd shift to Lascannons with more reliable damage?
Lascannons don't require being within 12" and in range of counter fire from strats.
MM pods still occasionally see play.
If Lascannons don't require being within 12" why are you talking about Drop Pods with them? If you're gonna Drop Pod, the Multi-Melta does significantly more.
Alpha-strike protection and beta-strike ability - especially with obscuring to maximize the available firing lanes.
It's pointless anyway because it all comes down to pts efficiency, lascannons could be better or worse than multi-meltas if the points were really low or really high regardless of whether lascannons were D6 or D3+3 Damage.
You all know this, it's the reason why there is good chaff, good elites and good monsters and bad chaff, bad elites and bad monsters instead of monsters and elites always being great and chaff always being bad.
There are two reasons to change weapon stats, to create a more fun gameplay experience or to make a unit more or less of a glasscannon, viability shouldn't factor into it at all. Lokhust Heavy Destroyers were viable at D6 damage and did not become OP at 3D3 damage.
Eihnlazer wrote: I still have yet to understand how Custodes gaining the same free rules every other army has been getting is considered power creep.
I mean the win rates dont lie, but that is actually all custodes got in their new dex. Shield hosts and ka'tah's. Bikes got +1w and lost obsec. Salvo launchers damage got more reliable but they lost reroll wounds vs vehicles. Wardens got cheaper and bodyguard but lost their deny on a 3+. All characters got +1w and a except for vexilla which only got +1w. All 3++ saves were taken away except for a one turn relic. Our strats got recosted to be more inline with other 9th books. Our faction specific secondaries are Mehhhh.
As far as datasheets go we were one of the least changed codex's in 9th.
you're looking at the datasheet, the power is in the stratagems as far as i understand. (I legit havnt looked at the codex since theyre one that interests me the least and no one locally plays them)
It's really hard to pin down with Custodes as their strats haven't really changed other than getting cheaper, but for smaller units.
Perhaps their win rates are more a factor of people pig piling the faction and winning a lot, because it's such an easy faction to start.
Perhaps...the only reason Custodes wasn't hitting high win rates since mid-edition is that people dropped them as they didn't want to deal with the weakness to morale and mortal wounds. Now that both those problems are "solved" people are picking them up again and they were already at a high level of viability?
Couple this with the nerfs to souping in armies in GK and Sisters and suddenly those armies are a lot easier for Custodes to tackle. That and the fact that it is still really hard to pick secondaries against Custodes as any kill oriented play is bound to fail.
So...Custodes were always kind of busted and we just didn't see it until the popularity came back.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/08 21:40:25
