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.

 Eldarsif wrote:

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.

I think there's some internal politics going on where they don't want to admit the power levels are out of wack, but they get mad when players exploit their rules and play 40K WRONG and those powergamers need to be REIGNED IN from their skew lists that take advantage of bad internal balance.

I'm much more of the "don't hate the player, hate the game" mindset.

ccs wrote:
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.

*shrug* I don't really ascribe to the idea of list tailoring - tournament or otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

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.

In 8th edition, yea, they were great. Only later on though when they picked up the extra AP from doctrines before the nerf.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

In 8th edition, yea, they were great. Only later on though when they picked up the extra AP from doctrines before the nerf.

I don't see it. A castellan Whirlwind is basically the same thing with more T and more W. But maybe I'm just spoiled by remembering when Thunderfires were cool with different ammunition profiles.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
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.

*shrug* I don't really ascribe to the idea of list tailoring - tournament or otherwise.

Really?
You really expect me to believe that you won't respond to the meta you play in/the challenges you expect to face?
That you won't adjust your list to accommodate for newer/weaker/stronger players? Or at least stronger lists/collections.
What do you do when you go to play a game that's not your preffered pts size?

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
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.

*shrug* I don't really ascribe to the idea of list tailoring - tournament or otherwise.

Really?
You really expect me to believe that you won't respond to the meta you play in/the challenges you expect to face?
That you won't adjust your list to accommodate for newer/weaker/stronger players? Or at least stronger lists/collections.
What do you do when you go to play a game that's not your preffered pts size?

You're asking the wrong person the wrong questions. None of that factors into tournament win rates, so...

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

Nope he's not. That's literally the point I'm making. He (and many other units) should have been adjusted in any of the previous points updates. But they haven't been. (Outside of Orks his gimmick is that he gives reroll 1s to hit in an army that has the greatest access of reroll 1s in the game.)

The balance at the moment is awful. In a tournament setting we are currently looking at the top factions getting 2.5x the percentage win rate of the bottom faction. The points values between them is massively out of whack. And this doesn't just affect competitive games either.

I'm surprised people are looking at the differences I pointed out and thinking 'yeah well that unit isn't taken anyway'...

Yes

Exactly!

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
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.

*shrug* I don't really ascribe to the idea of list tailoring - tournament or otherwise.

Really?
You really expect me to believe that you won't respond to the meta you play in/the challenges you expect to face?
That you won't adjust your list to accommodate for newer/weaker/stronger players? Or at least stronger lists/collections.
What do you do when you go to play a game that's not your preffered pts size?

The only reason you'd ever take Yarrick in a meta is if Orks were so overwhelmingly dominant that it'd be worth it. A lot of the anti-faction stuff is going away in 9th. Daemons are stupid scary to GK right now while the opposite is not true at all. I imagine Yarrick will see a much more limited ability in the new book.

And, yes, I pretty much play only tournament. Anything out of that window is going to be when I'm playing with the kids and I don't much worry about list building there.

But if the goal is balance I am not sure why I would be worried about those scenarios.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
I don't see it. A castellan Whirlwind is basically the same thing with more T and more W. But maybe I'm just spoiled by remembering when Thunderfires were cool with different ammunition profiles.

Thunderfires were great when loyal 32 were ever present and 'kill more' was a thing. When you can shoot out of LOS T and W don't matter as much and the BS2 helps a bit, but back then they were like dirt cheap ( 80 points or so ).

Breton wrote:

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.

Define "out of sync". Every FAQ, errata, and points change for fw units in 8th after the release of the fw indexes was handled by gw. In 9th all of the rules for fw units were written by the gw rules team at the start of the edition in the Imperial Armour Compendium, and were intended to bring them "in line" with the codex units, which they mostly did. But the codexes that they were "brought in line" with consisted of the 9th edition loyalist codex, Necrons, and the remaining 8th edition codexes. Since then, they've been creeped on by the newer codexes just like everything else, with minimal, if any, points adjustments.

Poly Ranger wrote:
The balance at the moment is awful

It is...and it isn't.

For 2/11 forward these are the win rates when Custodes, Tau, and Nids ( an unintended interaction book ) are out of the numbers. There were 20,116 games in this period. Tau and Custodes account for 5,431 of those. So for 73% of the games this is what is looks like:



Then you have the effect where people jump away from weaker and un-updated factions meaning those left playing them tend to have less experience which puts downward pressure on their win rate.

Obviously even with Tau and Custodes removed we have some standouts, but not quite to the same level. If I removed Drukhari and Tyranids you'd see some others jump to 60%.

If I remove the two biggest outliers with low games then it looks like this:



If you hammered down the problem armies you'd have more room to breathe. You won't entice more people into AM still, because the new books are just way more interesting to play.

There are so many ways to look at “balance” that you can find evidence to support whatever hypothesis you start with. So, go nuts!

I would say that while the balance between good 9th edition books and the worst 8th edition books is dire, but probably no worse than in most other stretches. However, there is a broad, strong group of books that are all highly competitive.

I think that GW tries to balance the game, but isn’t great at it. It’s not their top priority, and you can tell that their heart isn’t in it. What’s almost certainly not happening is that GW writes rules or makes balance decisions based on what they want to sell. I think that GW has a holistic view that they want exciting rules that inspire people to build armies, but they clearly don’t cut the points on slow selling units.

Likewise, while codex creep is real, that’s the natural consequence of each book including the tools to deal with prior books. In fact, more new models are given trash rules than given a push.

 Polonius wrote:
What’s almost certainly not happening is that GW writes rules or makes balance decisions based on what they want to sell.

Nah, that's not the case. We know that when the Wraithknight mini first dropped they were told to push it so it would sell.

Hecaton wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
What’s almost certainly not happening is that GW writes rules or makes balance decisions based on what they want to sell.

Nah, that's not the case. We know that when the Wraithknight mini first dropped they were told to push it so it would sell.

Sure, and that’s one unit over a decade ago. Like, new models should have good rules. But really look at the recent models, and ask if they were “pushed” by rules. Look at the new orks: the squig boss was amazing, the hunter rig is very good, but the top units aren’t the newer kits but are instead buggies, planes, and bikes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
The balance at the moment is awful

It is...and it isn't.

For 2/11 forward these are the win rates when Custodes, Tau, and Nids ( an unintended interaction book ) are out of the numbers. There were 20,116 games in this period. Tau and Custodes account for 5,431 of those. So for 73% of the games this is what is looks like:

Spoiler:

Then you have the effect where people jump away from weaker and un-updated factions meaning those left playing them tend to have less experience which puts downward pressure on their win rate.

Obviously even with Tau and Custodes removed we have some standouts, but not quite to the same level. If I removed Drukhari and Tyranids you'd see some others jump to 60%.

If I remove the two biggest outliers with low games then it looks like this:

Spoiler:

If you hammered down the problem armies you'd have more room to breathe. You won't entice more people into AM still, because the new books are just way more interesting to play.

I'd argue that people who are staying with weaker factions are the players more experienced with those factions, not less experienced.

From what you've said, if we take out 27% of consistent results that represent the top two factions, then the balance doesn't look so bad (despite there still being a 41% gap). But if we take away the two factions creating that gap, we still end up with a 19% difference. Then if we look at the stats if we take a following 2 factions out it will look even closer...
Well of course it will. That is how statistics work. If you only look at the middle 67% of games (after having taken out Custodes, Tau, Eldar, Tyranids, GSC and Dark Eldar = 6677games), of course the middle 67% is going to be closer. This will be the case in pretty much all statistics from anywhere (except very random circumstances where there is a very limited middle). That isn't an argument for the GW having made an effort to properly balance the game with regular points adjustments. Having to eliminate 24% of the factions and over 33% of the data points to try and reach a point where you can argue that the game is balanced (with still a 19% difference), demonstrates itself how unbalanced it currently is.

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, and that’s one unit over a decade ago. Like, new models should have good rules. But really look at the recent models, and ask if they were “pushed” by rules. Look at the new orks: the squig boss was amazing, the hunter rig is very good, but the top units aren’t the newer kits but are instead buggies, planes, and bikes.

I have no reason to suspect that doesn't still happen.

 Polonius wrote:
There are so many ways to look at “balance” that you can find evidence to support whatever hypothesis you start with. So, go nuts!

I could have done this with many many more units. Pretty much the entire codex. I wasn't just nit picking to make the point. I picked units that were the most directly comparable and didn't want to spend 5-6 hours doing it for the whole codex.
The fact is though, even if I had tried to only look for the evidence that supports my point, the ones I have listed show an extreme disparity in balance between what the points are paying for. That alone demonstrates a lack of balance. What I can't find though, is a comparable unit in the Tau or Custode dexes that performs worse than one in the Guard dex for its points cost. If someone can show the lack of imbalance going one way with multiple examples, yet not be able to find any examples going the other way, then that isn't just 'finding evidence to support whatever hypothesis you start with', it clearly demonstrates such a lack of balance. The datasheets, points costs, tournament statistics all back this up.

Hecaton wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, and that’s one unit over a decade ago. Like, new models should have good rules. But really look at the recent models, and ask if they were “pushed” by rules. Look at the new orks: the squig boss was amazing, the hunter rig is very good, but the top units aren’t the newer kits but are instead buggies, planes, and bikes.

I have no reason to suspect that doesn't still happen.

During World War II, Britain regularly worked with occult leader Aleister Crowley to help them succeed in military operations. Therefore, I posit that the British army is now completely under the control of a nefarious cabal of sorcerers. As we can prove the event took place in the past, there is no reason to suspect that this does not still happen.

Hecaton wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, and that’s one unit over a decade ago. Like, new models should have good rules. But really look at the recent models, and ask if they were “pushed” by rules. Look at the new orks: the squig boss was amazing, the hunter rig is very good, but the top units aren’t the newer kits but are instead buggies, planes, and bikes.

I have no reason to suspect that doesn't still happen.

I’m sure they try, but nothing I’ve seen makes me think that GW is good at actually consistently pushing new models.

Poly Ranger wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
There are so many ways to look at “balance” that you can find evidence to support whatever hypothesis you start with. So, go nuts!

I could have done this with many many more units. Pretty much the entire codex. I wasn't just nit picking to make the point. I picked units that were the most directly comparable and didn't want to spend 5-6 hours doing it for the whole codex.
The fact is though, even if I had tried to only look for the evidence that supports my point, the ones I have listed show an extreme disparity in balance between what the points are paying for. That alone demonstrates a lack of balance. What I can't find though, is a comparable unit in the Tau or Custode dexes that performs worse than one in the Guard dex for its points cost. If someone can show the lack of imbalance going one way with multiple examples, yet not be able to find any examples going the other way, then that isn't just 'finding evidence to support whatever hypothesis you start with', it clearly demonstrates such a lack of balance. The datasheets, points costs, tournament statistics all back this up.

I mean, I guess I agree that IG and Tau are not remotely balanced with each other. Why would they be? Codexes had a major design shift in very late 8th that only accelerated in 9th.

Fair. But they could have at least tried to have brought a semblance of balance with the regular points adjustments. Otherwise, what's the point in them?

Poly Ranger wrote:
Having to eliminate 24% of the factions and over 33% of the data points to try and reach a point where you can argue that the game is balanced (with still a 19% difference), demonstrates itself how unbalanced it currently is.

There's so much happening here that this isn't quite representative. The people moving into Tau and Custodes cause a huge shift of what people are playing at any given time.

Those 60% listings are pickup wins on the backs of the 41%, which are all presently old books. Custodes, Tau, Tyranids, and DE represent 32% games vs AM, but 37% of their losses. One other faction holds AM back - Astartes - 18% of games and 17% of their losses ( Custodes are next at 10/14 ).

The other end of that is AM absolutely crushes anything Chaos, because of the anti-faction rules - they're 60% versus Thousand Sons, 58% v CK, and 50% vs Chaos/HA.

This is the same collision of old and new that causes Hive Guard to be busted and makes just dropping AM points really difficult as you'll completely dumpster CSM worse than Drukhari does.

 Flipsiders wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, and that’s one unit over a decade ago. Like, new models should have good rules. But really look at the recent models, and ask if they were “pushed” by rules. Look at the new orks: the squig boss was amazing, the hunter rig is very good, but the top units aren’t the newer kits but are instead buggies, planes, and bikes.

I have no reason to suspect that doesn't still happen.

During World War II, Britain regularly worked with occult leader Aleister Crowley to help them succeed in military operations. Therefore, I posit that the British army is now completely under the control of a nefarious cabal of sorcerers. As we can prove the event took place in the past, there is no reason to suspect that this does not still happen.

I mean, a lot of the people in GW back then are still in it now. So your argument doesn't work.

Hecaton wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, and that’s one unit over a decade ago. Like, new models should have good rules. But really look at the recent models, and ask if they were “pushed” by rules. Look at the new orks: the squig boss was amazing, the hunter rig is very good, but the top units aren’t the newer kits but are instead buggies, planes, and bikes.

I have no reason to suspect that doesn't still happen.

During World War II, Britain regularly worked with occult leader Aleister Crowley to help them succeed in military operations. Therefore, I posit that the British army is now completely under the control of a nefarious cabal of sorcerers. As we can prove the event took place in the past, there is no reason to suspect that this does not still happen.

I mean, a lot of the people in GW back then are still in it now. So your argument doesn't work.

My argument is that it's impossible to prove a negative, and that suggesting things which were true ten years ago are true today by default is a flimsy argument. Even within the realm of 40k that isn't a reliable assumption.

ccs wrote:

 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.

A lot of communities/leagues do have if not rules then social protocol to build all-comers lists rather than specifically gearing for an opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


The other end of that is AM absolutely crushes anything Chaos, because of the anti-faction rules - they're 60% versus Thousand Sons, 58% v CK, and 50% vs Chaos/HA.

... 50 % = "absolutely crushes"? Lets say this take away is... surprising. If wins = losses means crushing a codex, how exactly should balance look like?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Thunderfires were great when loyal 32 were ever present and 'kill more' was a thing. When you can shoot out of LOS T and W don't matter as much and the BS2 helps a bit, but back then they were like dirt cheap ( 80 points or so ).

Oh. That far back. That's more recent than it feels I guess.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


The other end of that is AM absolutely crushes anything Chaos, because of the anti-faction rules - they're 60% versus Thousand Sons, 58% v CK, and 50% vs Chaos/HA.

... 50 % = "absolutely crushes"? Lets say this take away is... surprising. If wins = losses means crushing a codex, how exactly should balance look like?

Sorry - let me temper my language. They take out Thousand Sons and CK as well as DE takes out anyone else and DE have been the soup du jour. With a 50% against the rest of Chaos it'd be quite easy to transform them into a gatekeeper for Chaos without being skew.

@ Daedalus: could you point me to the site where these numbers come from?
I have to say I'm a bit suspicious if 58% vs. CK and 60% vs TS really is... lets say much ahead of the curve.

I had a quick look at 40k stats (it was what I found while googling, so sorry if that is a suboptimal source) and there Astra Militarum was practically average against TS (TS had 50% win rate while having an average of 49.3% against all codices) and slightly sub-par against CK (who had 45% wins against Astra Militarum while having an average of 41%).

But as I said: I don't know what is the best source for your numbers. Regardless of this I agree that one faction having rules and buffs against particular subfactions makes statistics and balancing a bit wonky.

They're from BCP. I have a script pulling using cURL and punching it into a database. 40KStats hasn't updated since November ( you can see when you do their date pull down ).

This is the raw data for the TS and CK games ( note that some tournaments record points differently ):

Daedalus, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but this reminds me of a famous post on reddit (/r/nfl) about incredible QB Patrick Mahomes. The post was essentially "if you look at games where Mahomes didn't go supersaiyan, he looks like an average QB!" well... yeah

Doesn't matter to me if the meta outside of the top is "fine" (for some definition of fine), you can't throw out 27% of games and say anything useful about the game as a whole.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Daedalus, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but this reminds me of a famous post on reddit (/r/nfl) about incredible QB Patrick Mahomes. The post was essentially "if you look at games where Mahomes didn't go supersaiyan, he looks like an average QB!" well... yeah

Doesn't matter to me if the meta outside of the top is "fine" (for some definition of fine), you can't throw out 27% of games and say anything useful about the game as a whole.

Right - I am not arguing things are fine as a result of that introspective. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to the picture and everything gets smothered by these crazy books that we have a hard time seeing what's under the surface.