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.

I personally believe the balance in 40k at the moment is at its worst since the release of the scat-bike 7th ed Eldar dex and all the special detachment craziness that followed after.
The fact that some are newer dexes compared to older dexes should not be as much of a factor as it currently is since GW are supposed to be conducting points adjustments twice every year. This seems pointless (pun unintended) if GW are barely going to adjust the points for dexes that are severely lacking.
I’ve decided to do a comparison between some of the units in the dex at the absolute bottom of the pecking order, Astra Militarum, and the two at the top currently, Custodes and Tau, to demonstrate the absolute gulf in balance. This doesn’t take into account the greater ability to buff stronger units for the more recent dexes or the improved strength of their stratagems in comparison to older dexes, just a straight up comparison (although if we take buffing into account, it will almost certainly benefit the Tau and Custodes more). I have intentionally not picked the absolute top tier units from Custodes and Tau such as Bikes and Suits to use in the comparisons but instead units that are as similar as possible, I have however used Scions, Infantry and Bullgryns which are three of the better Guard units (after TCs and Manticores). I used a Basic Russ rather than a TC since it was more of a direct comparison with the Hammerhead (same reason why it is a Vanquisher).

1) Yarrick vs Shield Captain in Allarus Terminator Armour 105pts vs 115pts

-Same M, BS and WS (although Yarrick has -1 to hit in assault).
-Both have reroll 1’s to hit aura.
-Both have 4++
-Shield Captain has +2S, +1T, +4W, +4A (with free Misericordia), +2Ld, +2Save
-Shield Captain has 24” RF1 4/1/2 and 18” AD3 5/3/1 blast vs Yarrick’s 24” RF2 4/0/1 for shooting
-Yarrick has a 3+++ on final wound and Summary Execution rule
-Shield Captain is only 10pts more

2) Leman Russ Vanquisher with Heavy Bolter and Heavy Bolter sponsoons vs Hammerhead Gunship with Accelerator Burst Cannons 175pts vs 155pts

-Hammerhead has +2M, +2W
-Leman Russ has +1T, +1Save
-Hammerhead has 18” A16 6/1/1 and 72” H1 14/6/D3+6 no invuln + 3 mortal wounds vs 36” H9 5/1/2 and H1 (2 when moving half) 8/-3/d6 roll 2 dice discard lowest
-Hammerhead can reroll a hit when shooting and also has fly
-Hammerhead is 20pts cheaper

3) Ogryns vs Krootox 25pts vs 25pts

-Krootox has +1M, +1S, +1W, +1A
-Ogryn has +2Ld (not very relevant on small units) and +1Save
-Krootox has -2ap and 2D in assault compared to Ogryns -1ap and 1D
-Orgryn has 18” A3 5/0/1 vs Krootox 48”H2 7/1/2
-Krootox has 7” pregame move
-Krootox take no slot if Kroot taken
-Tau Auxiliary can benefit from traits under one sept unlike Guard Auxiliaries.

4) Scout Sentinel with Autocannon vs Krootox 45pts vs 25pts

-Krootox has +1WS, +1S, +3A
-Sentinel has +2M, +2W, +2Save
-Krootox have 4 6/2/2 attacks vs 1 5/0/1 attacks
-Autocannon and Kroot Gun exactly the same
-Both have pregame move
-Sentinel is almost double the cost

5) Scions vs Vespid Stingwings 9pts vs 12pts

-Vespids have +8M, +1S, +1T, +1Ld
-Scions have +1BS
-Both have DS
-Vespids have -1ap in assault
-Vespids have 18” A2 5/3/2 vs 18” RF1 3/2/1
-Scions have Ob Sec and can take special weapons (which they obviously pay for making them significantly more than a Vespid)
-Vespids are 3 pts more

6) Guard Infantry vs Kroot 5.5pts vs 6pts

-Kroot have +1M, +1WS, +1S, +1A
-Guard have +1Ld, +1save
-Kroot have -1ap in assault
-Kroot have 24” RF1 4/0/1 vs 24” RF1 3/0/1
-Kroot have a 7” pregame move, an extra save in cover, a better version of the frag grenade and make other Kroot units slotless.
-Guard can take specials and heavy weapons.
-Kroot cost 0.5pts more than an Infantry Squad member.

7) Bullgryns with Brute Shields and Maul vs Custodian Guard with sentinel spears 35pts vs 45pts
-Custodian Guard have +1WS, +2BS, +1A (with Misercondria) +4Ld, +2save
-Both have 4++
-Custodians hit with 7/3/2 in assault vs 7/1/2
-Bullgryns with Maul don’t have shooting, Custodians have 24” RF1 4/1/2
-Custodians have Ob Sec
-Custodians are only 10pts more

What are your thoughts seeing these discrepancies? Have GW used the points adjustments effectively in attempting to balance the game as much as possible?

"Old codex worse than overtuned new codices."

Yeah, we know...

Yup, but remember they raised some units in underperforming codexes because the internal balance frustrated them. Their motivation is not external balance.

It is not always the case though. Custodes, orks, harlequins at the start of 9th, and with their old books, were better then then armies with current codex. GW just ingores, in general, the state of all armies, that do not have an edition specific book.

Hecaton wrote:
Yup, but remember they raised some units in underperforming codexes because the internal balance frustrated them. Their motivation is not external balance.

Still same thing. 8th edition codices generally had terrible internal balance compared to their 9th edition counter-parts.

There simply is never any reason to compare a 8th edition codex to a 9th edition codex. The one and only answer to every single one of their points is "I'm sorry for you, but GW screwed you over because they make more money by not releasing all codices at once".

 Jidmah wrote:
"Old codex worse than overtuned new codices."

Yeah, we know...

Hence the focus of the question being about whether GW are doing a good job with points adjustments and balance checks. Especially since one of the more recent ones came out.

What I have tried to show above, is that it isn't just a slight imbalance, but utterly and completely off in every comparison. And they have only very recently released a points adjustment.

The entire reason for the points adjustments and balance checks is to try and balance these issues whilst Factions are waiting for new codexes and to limit mistakes made with units that were created too overpowered (or underpowered) in new codex releases.

So are they doing that effectively?

if their sales go up then yes. With a few exeptions of eldar and necron, GW in 9th seems to put out books, let them be good for a 3 months and then replace them with something else. The only time GW reacts very swift if a build or army rises, which they were not planning for. GW clearly had not done the math of what happens, if a marine army ingores troops and the new bling Indomitus models and just goes salamander with maxed out ETB aggresors. Those kind of armies are delt with fast and brutal.

There is also the problem of the edition having changed release windows, giving some people the false idea that GW was trying to balance stuff. Because after the "OP" DE and Mechanicus, came the much tamer GK and really mid level 1ksons.The thing is those armies were suppose to be out in january prior year, so we would have jumped from stuff like marines, necron armies in to 5 NDKS with 30 interceptors everywhere.

I'm not talking about their sales side of it, I'm purely asking about the balance side. If you look at the above comparisons, can you legitimately say they have used the points adjustments and balance checks to balance the game effectively?

Whilst army releases have been affected by the pandemic, working on points adjustments needs very little in comparison. No logistics, builds new dexes etc are required, just a small team to look closely at results and also comparisons between and within codices. Now this team could be affected by absences due to Covid, granted, but nowhere near to the same extent as it would affect their release schedule.

GW doesn't care about balance, or it care about balance only as far as it impacts the sales.

Points adjustments and balancing is use to boost sales or change sales of specific items.

And while you are right that some changes could be done even by the already existing team, GW is clearly not interested in it. Specialy when it assumes, probably righfuly so, that people will buy their products no matter what. With AoS which has a much smaller audiance they have to be more careful, but even there they are fully accepting a content draught at the start of an edition. And not everything can be explained with covid. specially when w40k gets real meta changers through WD army lists.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"Old codex worse than overtuned new codices."

Yeah, we know...

Hence the focus of the question being about whether GW are doing a good job with points adjustments and balance checks. Especially since one of the more recent ones came out.

What I have tried to show above, is that it isn't just a slight imbalance, but utterly and completely off in every comparison. And they have only very recently released a points adjustment.

The entire reason for the points adjustments and balance checks is to try and balance these issues whilst Factions are waiting for new codexes and to limit mistakes made with units that were created too overpowered (or underpowered) in new codex releases.

So are they doing that effectively?

You can only go so low and so high before you put everything out of whack. It still falls into the "sucks that GW isn't releasing things in a better fashon".

Should Ogryn be 20 points? What's the consequence of that? Is it appropriate to put that unit into "discount" territory, have people buy loads of them, and then jack up the points later?
Should Krootox be 30 to 35 points? Does that make their relative cost to everything else bad? If so, then what do you do with all those other units? Jack up their points?

In a world where releases are progressive there isn't a nexus where you could assign level points without constantly upending armies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Points adjustments and balancing is use to boost sales or change sales of specific items.

No. They aren't.

No. They aren't.

Then there is zero explanation to why GW lets something like Ynari or DE work the way they do for months on end, often even year+. while something they didn't pick up durning testing, like the Salamanders aggresor lists from early 9th get destroyed at GWs speed of light.

Karol wrote:

No. They aren't.

Then there is zero explanation to why GW lets something like Ynari or DE work the way they do for months on end, often even year+. while something they didn't pick up durning testing, like the Salamanders aggresor lists from early 9th get destroyed at GWs speed of light.

Incompetence and indifference are often more likely explanations than malevolence. GW has no incentive to care for a balanced game....which is something that took me some time to get, but it makes perfect sense: the numbers prove that they don't really have to care. GW has a quasi-monopoly position in the wargaming industry and everything they release immediately sells out, despite community backlash on many topics. Why should they give two gaks if their business model of selling admittedly awesome miniatures alongside mediocre rules has been going strong for, what? Three decades?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"Old codex worse than overtuned new codices."

Yeah, we know...

Hence the focus of the question being about whether GW are doing a good job with points adjustments and balance checks. Especially since one of the more recent ones came out.

What I have tried to show above, is that it isn't just a slight imbalance, but utterly and completely off in every comparison. And they have only very recently released a points adjustment.

The entire reason for the points adjustments and balance checks is to try and balance these issues whilst Factions are waiting for new codexes and to limit mistakes made with units that were created too overpowered (or underpowered) in new codex releases.

So are they doing that effectively?

You can only go so low and so high before you put everything out of whack. It still falls into the "sucks that GW isn't releasing things in a better fashon".

Should Ogryn be 20 points? What's the consequence of that? Is it appropriate to put that unit into "discount" territory, have people buy loads of them, and then jack up the points later?
Should Krootox be 30 to 35 points? Does that make their relative cost to everything else bad? If so, then what do you do with all those other units? Jack up their points?

In a world where releases are progressive there isn't a nexus where you could assign level points without constantly upending armies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Points adjustments and balancing is use to boost sales or change sales of specific items.

No. They aren't.

That second one is my least favorite myth. If points adjustments and balancing was used to boost sale or change which units you need to be competitive, why do they almost never boost sales or change what units you need to be competitive?

Look at CA2022. Points nerfs to some good units, points drops to some bad units. Net result for 90% of the changes?: Needing to cut 50-100pts out of current lists. None of the drops were significant enough to make the unit in question see play (the drop to PBC's is the only possible exception but people were already running 2 or 3 in most deathguard lists) so the increases just made the army slightly more expensive. If anything, CA2022 probably resulted in a small uptick of units hitting the secondary market.

The balance passes, especially the first one of the Nachmund season, have been largely terrible. Especially at helping units/factions that are struggling. There are a lot of possible explanations for why the passes are so bad (my money is on 'incompetence') but 'to sell models' is one of the few that is easily and completely debunked.

Some of the space marine supplement nerfs were blatantly explained in their FAQs:
'You guys are using things we wrote in a way we didn't intend (because we didn't think about it)'

That sort of thing they fix fast. Broken Ynnari were apparently fine as is, and now they're... probably a mediocre craftworld with bad soup rules. But everything we've seen out of GW seems to indicate that they prefer to fix things on their schedule. Its only when players are 'doing it wrong' do things get fast-tracked to change prior to a codex (beyond blah points changes and the occasional armor save tweak or Core tag, and that's pretty unique to the last six months or so).

Not only that. If they were to change points just for sales they would not randomly make old resin or metal models that are out of stock the best ones rather than in stock plastic kits.

Just look at space marines since the 8th 2.0 book. Leviathans, Contemptors, Chaplain Dreads, Mortis Dreads and Thunderfire cannons have been some of the best Space marine units. Units that have been out of stock or even out of production. If there were anyone that profited on those units then it would have been the recasters.

Wouldn't be the least surprised if recasters have sold more of some of those units since that book dropped than GW/FW have sold of them during their entire shelf life. Especially volkite arms for contemptors. I know for a fact at least one of the larger recasters had supply issues with that one item because the demand was so huge for them and FW had none in stock as well. Wasn't there also a recent tournament in spain that had banned recasts and most of the contemptors were pulled because they could see they were all made from the same recaster?

Great way for GW to increase of sells of items they dont even have in stock to sell. Make volkite contemptors the backbone, one of the few reasons they could even compete for a while, of the largest faction of the game and then dont supply it. What a GENIUS MOVE!

I think the issue is that GW don't really have a grand plan. They just chuck stuff out and see what happens. With a tendency towards Codex Creep, because chucking out powerful stuff generates interest (and probably - but not always obviously - sales) as compared with chucking out mediocre or bad stuff.

I mean compare say Tyranids to Guard. Both are languishing in a "may get a codex 6 months before 10th edition, possibly after Marines 4.0". But Tyranids have got a bunch of supplementary rules to make them one of the better factions in the game. Guard meanwhile... got 2+ saves on their Leman Russ. I'm not really sure why GW makes "more money" selling say loads of Termagaunts, or Hive Guard, or dubious Forgeworld abominations (okay maybe there) - than they would in plastic bawkses. I just think someone in the rules design team managed to give Tyranids a hand, while the Guard team are being kept under wraps - possibly because there's a big release coming in 2023, who knows.

I'd like codex creep to be less of a thing - but I don't see that wave of codexes at the outset of an edition ever happening. Failing that I'd like a Generals Handbook style thing, preferably free and online, that sets all points for "Early 9th" - when 100 points buys you a Spade. Then, when you release your "Mid-9th codexes" - and their Spades are no longer a Spade but a Spade+1, you can make the regular Spades 90 points. We wouldn't get the situation where say Trajann is 160 points, putting basically all previous special characters of comparable (and higher) points to shame. If that's the bar, they can all become 100 points (and regular guys, idk, 50).

But I'm not sure GW want to do that. Because they want Guard to ascend on the back of supplements and a new codex - not because they make Leman Russ 110 points or something.

I think it's a combination of stupidity and malice - they view rules as worthless unless they drive short-term sales, but aren't great at making them because they pay their designers peanuts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You can only go so low and so high before you put everything out of whack.

Of course. There is no way to achieve perfect balance. But many of the differences are utterly ludicrous.
Take the first example: +2S, +1T, +4W, +4A, +2Ld, +2save, +1 to hit in assault, significantly better shooting and also Deep Strike... For 10pts.
They aren't even trying.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"Old codex worse than overtuned new codices."

Yeah, we know...

Hence the focus of the question being about whether GW are doing a good job with points adjustments and balance checks. Especially since one of the more recent ones came out.

What I have tried to show above, is that it isn't just a slight imbalance, but utterly and completely off in every comparison. And they have only very recently released a points adjustment.

The entire reason for the points adjustments and balance checks is to try and balance these issues whilst Factions are waiting for new codexes and to limit mistakes made with units that were created too overpowered (or underpowered) in new codex releases.

So are they doing that effectively?

You assume they are even trying. It's not their goal though. Balance=bad for gw.

Never Attribute Malice when Incompetence and ignorance is possible.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Never Attribute Malice when Incompetence and ignorance is possible.

Bingo. Why intentionally unbalance things when they can simply not put effort into balancing them in the first place?

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You can only go so low and so high before you put everything out of whack.

Of course. There is no way to achieve perfect balance. But many of the differences are utterly ludicrous.
Take the first example: +2S, +1T, +4W, +4A, +2Ld, +2save, +1 to hit in assault, significantly better shooting and also Deep Strike... For 10pts.
They aren't even trying.

Yarrick really isn't even on the radar, but he doesn't have the CORE restriction and has the ability to abuse Orks with full rerolls. Make Yarrick too cheap and then he's an auto-take that pushes matches against Orks into a tough place.

Bold to assume Yarrick is worth his price point to begin with.

Most of the adjustments are definitely for internal balance reasons within an army. Take Sisters, for example:
Points increases:
Morvenn Vahl (+15): She was in literally every single competitive Sisters list. Absolutely too good not to take. With the increase, she's still really good, but slightly less of an auto-include in some builds.
Celestian Sacresants (+2 ppm): Another unit that was in basically every competitive list, and several lists were spamming them. Now, I don't think a lot of lists are going to take more than one unit of them.
Dominions (+2 ppm): Most competitive lists were running at least one unit with ACSBs for the Blessed Bolts strat; many ran 2 units for redundancy. Now, I don't think you're going to see more than one unit, if that.
Retributors (+5 per Cherub): Another unit that everyone was taking multiples of in comp play; these got the double nerf of increased Cherub cost and the restriction of popping 1 Cherub per turn. These will probably still see play because they are still the best heavy firepower per point in the book, but you won't see three units anymore and nobody is going to double Cherub them.
Points decreases:
Paragon Warsuits (-10 ppm): These were a rare sight in comp lists; they might become slightly less so although the points drop really should have been -20 or more. The BR supplement tried to throw them a bone as well but again probably not enough.
Exorcist (-10): Again, rare to see in any top list, for good reason. Honestly still not very good due to still high cost and overcosted strat, although with more non-LOS shooting than ever out there maybe Sisters players need to bite the bullet and take one anyways.
Immolator (-10): Like the other units that got a drop, this one was rarely seen on top tables. With the points decrease and the hikes to Retributors, these are looking slightly better, but I'm still not sure they quite get there.

Notice the pattern; units that were always getting picked got a bump, whereas units that were rarely/never picked got a drop. And it's not just to sell more kits, or else the Castigator would have gotten a similar drop (and boy does it need it). This same logic applies to the somewhat unnecessary bump to the cost of Guard Manticores; it's a unit that was always picked, and so it got bumped up in cost. The reason the Sisters adjustment feels so ham-fisted is because it didn't buff the underperforming stuff enough to compensate for the nerfs to the good stuff, meaning the army as a whole lost a lot of its power. Couple that with the mission changes and the loss of subfaction soup and Sisters went from a solid A tier army down to C tier, possibly D tier.

So yes, I think GW does have a goal in mind for these changes (internal balance within each codex) but their approach to it is somewhat incompetent as it often just ends up nerfing a faction that isn't overperforming and allowing others (such as Drukhari) to continue being dominant despite adjustments.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
So yes, I think GW does have a goal in mind for these changes (internal balance within each codex) but their approach to it is somewhat incompetent as it often just ends up nerfing a faction that isn't overperforming and allowing others (such as Drukhari) to continue being dominant despite adjustments.

The problem is fething with internal balance like that in underperforming codices just makes things worse. If the codex is underperforming, don't nerf the things that are always taken, buff everything else.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You can only go so low and so high before you put everything out of whack.

Of course. There is no way to achieve perfect balance. But many of the differences are utterly ludicrous.
Take the first example: +2S, +1T, +4W, +4A, +2Ld, +2save, +1 to hit in assault, significantly better shooting and also Deep Strike... For 10pts.
They aren't even trying.

Yarrick really isn't even on the radar, but he doesn't have the CORE restriction and has the ability to abuse Orks with full rerolls. Make Yarrick too cheap and then he's an auto-take that pushes matches against Orks into a tough place.

He isn't an auto-take vs Orks already? Shaving some points off him won't change that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Bold to assume Yarrick is worth his price point to begin with.

No such assumption made. If you made him 60 points he'd be a stupid cheap reroll buff for a bunch of tanks and nothing more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
He isn't an auto-take vs Orks already? Shaving some points off him won't change that.

He isn't, because he's horribly expensive when you're not playing Orks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Bold to assume Yarrick is worth his price point to begin with.

No such assumption made. If you made him 60 points he'd be a stupid cheap reroll buff for a bunch of tanks and nothing more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
He isn't an auto-take vs Orks already? Shaving some points off him won't change that.

He isn't, because he's horribly expensive when you're not playing Orks.

You're making the foolish assumptions that:
A) All games are tourney games where you can't alter what you play.
B) Outside tourney games people won't ever alter their forces based on who their playing.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Most of the adjustments are definitely for internal balance reasons within an army. Take Sisters, for example:
Points increases:
Morvenn Vahl (+15): She was in literally every single competitive Sisters list. Absolutely too good not to take. With the increase, she's still really good, but slightly less of an auto-include in some builds.
Celestian Sacresants (+2 ppm): Another unit that was in basically every competitive list, and several lists were spamming them. Now, I don't think a lot of lists are going to take more than one unit of them.
Dominions (+2 ppm): Most competitive lists were running at least one unit with ACSBs for the Blessed Bolts strat; many ran 2 units for redundancy. Now, I don't think you're going to see more than one unit, if that.
Retributors (+5 per Cherub): Another unit that everyone was taking multiples of in comp play; these got the double nerf of increased Cherub cost and the restriction of popping 1 Cherub per turn. These will probably still see play because they are still the best heavy firepower per point in the book, but you won't see three units anymore and nobody is going to double Cherub them.
Points decreases:
Paragon Warsuits (-10 ppm): These were a rare sight in comp lists; they might become slightly less so although the points drop really should have been -20 or more. The BR supplement tried to throw them a bone as well but again probably not enough.
Exorcist (-10): Again, rare to see in any top list, for good reason. Honestly still not very good due to still high cost and overcosted strat, although with more non-LOS shooting than ever out there maybe Sisters players need to bite the bullet and take one anyways.
Immolator (-10): Like the other units that got a drop, this one was rarely seen on top tables. With the points decrease and the hikes to Retributors, these are looking slightly better, but I'm still not sure they quite get there.

Notice the pattern; units that were always getting picked got a bump, whereas units that were rarely/never picked got a drop. And it's not just to sell more kits, or else the Castigator would have gotten a similar drop (and boy does it need it). This same logic applies to the somewhat unnecessary bump to the cost of Guard Manticores; it's a unit that was always picked, and so it got bumped up in cost. The reason the Sisters adjustment feels so ham-fisted is because it didn't buff the underperforming stuff enough to compensate for the nerfs to the good stuff, meaning the army as a whole lost a lot of its power. Couple that with the mission changes and the loss of subfaction soup and Sisters went from a solid A tier army down to C tier, possibly D tier.

So yes, I think GW does have a goal in mind for these changes (internal balance within each codex) but their approach to it is somewhat incompetent as it often just ends up nerfing a faction that isn't overperforming and allowing others (such as Drukhari) to continue being dominant despite adjustments.

The problem is that everything nerfed is still auto-take due to how the meta is and how useful those units are. Ultimately GW needs to rewrite datasheets more often or drop points heavily on underperforming units instead of trying to ruin average and underperforming factions.

Klickor wrote:
Not only that. If they were to change points just for sales they would not randomly make old resin or metal models that are out of stock the best ones rather than in stock plastic kits.

Just look at space marines since the 8th 2.0 book. Leviathans, Contemptors, Chaplain Dreads, Mortis Dreads and Thunderfire cannons have been some of the best Space marine units. Units that have been out of stock or even out of production. If there were anyone that profited on those units then it would have been the recasters.

wait what? Thunderfire Cannons have been some of the best units? Aren't Leviathans, Chaplain Dreads and Mortis Dreads Forgeworld? Forgeworld may be GW, but they've also always been more than a little out of sync with each other.