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.

My group came up with a strong justification for the auto-wounding thing.

See, the Imperial Guard is such a vast organisation the battle isn't one battle, the enemy's been fighting this battle for days against waves and waves of Guard - of which this is just the most recent wave.
These days of constant fighting has left your enemy extremely fatigued and vulnerable to damage.

Yes that's right, your tank needs a nap, that's why.

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

mostly right. though it basically neutered the ork book, weakened GSC and necrons. Overall I think the changes are good for the game as a whole, I just wish GW had given these armies something to compensate enough. Marines and Orks were pretty close before this and it made for some good fun games where the two were evenly matched. that is no longer the case,

 Eonfuzz wrote:
lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.

Haha, silly you. Orks won't get feth.

Though there was another guy winning a GT with kill rigs in their lists, so maybe those get another +20 points and limited to 1 per list.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.

Haha, silly you. Orks won't get feth.

Though there was another guy winning a GT with kill rigs in their lists, so maybe those get another +20 points and limited to 1 per list.

The next dataslate will prevent Orks from taking units with the letters O, K or G, as all of those units are wholly too powerful. Long live the Deff Dread only lists of Winter 2022.

Deff dreads are one per army now. Also moved to lord of war.

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Woah!!! someone with a sense of perspesctive!!!

Are you sure you are on the right forum???

princeyg wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Woah!!! someone with a sense of perspesctive!!!

Are you sure you are on the right forum???

Confirmation bias isn't the same as " a sense of perspective".

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change? It just throws everything off kilter. Yeah, the game will survive, but we've piled one more crappy, unrealistic rule on top of the pile and continue to diverge from any sort of consistency. I think it's very telling that Unit and CatBarf, both Guard fans, are not happy with this. They're also students of game design, and this is just bad game design. It's okay to grouse about that, especially since it seems like many of the other common places to discuss this (i.e. reddit) aren't noticing this change.

I would also bet you a large sum of money that, a year from now, people will look back on this change to Guard in the dataslate and trash it. Just like people were initially very happy about the change of the AP mechanic from 7th to 8th, and the change of the wound chart from 7th to 8th, and the removal of initiative from 7th to 8th, etc. etc.

 Ordana wrote:
Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.

"Oh no, 200 lasguns can kill a tank, the game is dying!!".

yes its a dumb rule, its a bandaid to give a faction that is completely in the gutter with an old codex, and unlikely to see a new one any time soon by the looks of it, a quick an dirty leg up.
Be happy they get something

In the same dataslate they got free equipment upgrades for their squads. They already got something.

It's a dumb and unnecessary rule.

Also the light weapons doing significant damage to vehicles is totally a thing in my exp.

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

Well... power armor factions get a boost, yeah. The rest... those rules did change and the harlequin vehicles got a points hike. Whether that's enough or if anything is 'fixed' is up in the air

Lethality isn't fixed at all (specific power armor factions get a minor bump), AP isn't any more or less important, AP0 doesn't change and invulnerables still matter (and nothing about AP and saves changes a jot for non-SM/Sisters)

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

I'm not going to praise this. The design approach to these (dubious) fixes is actively terrible. They're flailing at self-created problems with more bloat, more favoritism and temporary patches for guard that makes no sense at all.

The fact that they're patching 9th with pieces of 3rd-6th is just hilarious. Especially since bodyguard is now a USR that is just a pointer to another (effective) USR (Look out sir), decrees a few exceptions (tyranids) and calls it a day.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?

Actually? Truly?

Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.

Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!

People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.

I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!

Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.

I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

You're right, praise should be given when due. This isn't that time.

I'm just happy they're quickly addressing issues instead of the old way of doing things where a codex would be broken for 2-3 years. Even if they don't get every change exactly perfect to please everyone and balance the game like chess, this is still progress. Guard needed some kind of band aid to get them by until their codex. Obviously the one they got isn't perfect but it will at least bump them to a bit more competitive.

Yeah this balance patch is an inelegant band-aid slapped on an edition that is rapidly losing blood.

The problem is that a more elegant fix would require a full reset and do over of weapons profiles and rules bloat.

Maybe for 10th. So they can feth it up again halfway through the edition and have another bloated zombie by 11th.

This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.

What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.

What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.

This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.

Voss wrote:
(specific power armor factions get a minor bump)

Ok that's it.

You are so removed from reality that there is no reason to say anything any more.

I have no idea why I still check this board...

Spoletta wrote:

Voss wrote:
(specific power armor factions get a minor bump)

Ok that's it.

You are so removed from reality that there is no reason to say anything any more.

I have no idea why I still check this board...

You're moving the armor save dice a single pip. Yes, it changes the death statistics. Yes, it makes those specific factions 'better.'

If you want to math it out and demonstrate exactly how 'game changing' it is and then frame an argument about how it makes the _overall_ game of 40k better (especially any game that doesn't involve marines at all), feel free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.

What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.

What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.

This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.

Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?

 Ordana wrote:
Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.

"Oh no, 200 lasguns can kill a tank, the game is dying!!".

yes its a dumb rule, its a bandaid to give a faction that is completely in the gutter with an old codex, and unlikely to see a new one any time soon by the looks of it, a quick an dirty leg up.
Be happy they get something

Only on Dakka can you have multiple people jump into a thread and declare something that is quite literally not what is being argued...

IT. IS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. BALANCE. OR. ANY. META. RUBBISH. THAT. YOU. WANT. TO. SPURT. OUT. HOW. MANY. TIMES. DOES. THIS. NEED. TO. BE. SAID?

Effectively getting a blanket +1 save vs most actually dangerous weapons is not a minor buff. This is a huge change that will almost certainly cause unexpected problems in certain cases.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
My group came up with a strong justification for the auto-wounding thing.

See, the Imperial Guard is such a vast organisation the battle isn't one battle, the enemy's been fighting this battle for days against waves and waves of Guard - of which this is just the most recent wave.
These days of constant fighting has left your enemy extremely fatigued and vulnerable to damage.

Yes that's right, your tank needs a nap, that's why.

I feel like the only correct answer to me (or at least to make me laugh) would be "through faith in the emperor all things are possible"

Good lord, these last few pages have been dispiriting and somehow simultaneously hilarious. Like, I love the absolutely bombastic takes. I love the attacking each other with "yeah it is a good rule, but it feels bad". Let's acknowledge that mechanically GW did something useful, but still dogpile them for whatever perceived slight we can come up with.

I think the only people that REALLY deserve to be upset right now are Ork players... and maybe Custodes players, too, because maybe the totality of buffs to similar armies around them coupled with the gnarly hits they took gives them a bit of cause to gripe. I'd be careful with those gripes, though, because some armies have been paying for their sins for YEARS (5th/6th GK come to mind). Ork players, yeah... bring your salt out. You guys... like shaking my head at how Orks are being treated the same as when someone mentions CSM are still at 1W. It's bad, you guys get your soapbox.

I've been playing Valorous Heart for awhile, and I've absolutely enjoyed the AP reduction, especially coupled with rules like cover. Rets with HBs in cover are 2+ vs massed AP -1? It has not been bad. I think this getting rolled out to on a broader scale to armies EVERYONE has been kicking around lately is not a bad thing. Heck, you may even see vehicles now, too. Sure, your 40+ guardsman within 12" and able to receive Orders can pump out enough wounds to kill a 3+ tank, but those SM tanks are likely 2+ against it. Edit: That's not right, go ahead and murder me for it and ignore everything else said. I know you'll do it and want to I acknowledge this was wrong before even seeing a reply Move on!

AP has been out of control for awhile, and some of the softer armies have been skewing into arms race tactics to mitigate that... which largely makes the armor stat pointless... and many of those paper armies have revival, mitigation, or invulnerable tactics to use in place of the armor stat (sorry Orks, still feeling for you guys). Even guard can counter with mass of models against the AP environment to maintain their presence throughout the game. Like I don't get why people are so scared of armored factions getting an armor buff in an edition and environment that actively makes armor saves ridiculous and rare. God forbid someone make a roll for the stat they already paid a premium for.

But salt on dakka.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Good lord, these last few pages have been dispiriting and somehow simultaneously hilarious. Like, I love the absolutely bombastic takes. I love the attacking each other with "yeah it is a good rule, but it feels bad". Let's acknowledge that mechanically GW did something useful, but still dogpile them for whatever perceived slight we can come up with.

I think the only people that REALLY deserve to be upset right now are Ork players... and maybe Custodes players, too, because maybe the totality of buffs to similar armies around them coupled with the gnarly hits they took gives them a bit of cause to gripe. I'd be careful with those gripes, though, because some armies have been paying for their sins for YEARS (5th/6th GK come to mind). Ork players, yeah... bring your salt out. You guys... like shaking my head at how Orks are being treated the same as when someone mentions CSM are still at 1W. It's bad, you guys get your soapbox.

I've been playing Valorous Heart for awhile, and I've absolutely enjoyed the AP reduction, especially coupled with rules like cover. Rets with HBs in cover are 2+ vs massed AP -1? It has not been bad. I think this getting rolled out to on a broader scale to armies EVERYONE has been kicking around lately is not a bad thing. Heck, you may even see vehicles now, too. Sure, your 40+ guardsman within 12" and able to receive Orders can pump out enough wounds to kill a 3+ tank, but those SM tanks are likely 2+ against it. Edit: That's not right, go ahead and murder me for it and ignore everything else said. I know you'll do it and want to I acknowledge this was wrong before even seeing a reply Move on!

AP has been out of control for awhile, and some of the softer armies have been skewing into arms race tactics to mitigate that... which largely makes the armor stat pointless... and many of those paper armies have revival, mitigation, or invulnerable tactics to use in place of the armor stat (sorry Orks, still feeling for you guys). Even guard can counter with mass of models against the AP environment to maintain their presence throughout the game. Like I don't get why people are so scared of armored factions getting an armor buff in an edition and environment that actively makes armor saves ridiculous and rare. God forbid someone make a roll for the stat they already paid a premium for.

But salt on dakka.

Hot take, its a trash rule that does not fix anything thats actually wrong with the army and is at best superficially a buff, at worst its a half arsed attempt to buff them.

We can math hammer all day and show the statistics of it, but the rule feels bad and is bad because dice rolls in a game never feel statistically average. This "Buff" is dumpster if you go the whole game and you only roll a handfull of 6s through out the entire match, which happens all the time.

 Grimtuff wrote:
IT. IS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. BALANCE. OR. ANY. META. RUBBISH. THAT. YOU. WANT. TO. SPURT. OUT. HOW. MANY. TIMES. DOES. THIS. NEED. TO. BE. SAID?

Just one more time, Miss Swan.

Seriously, every time someone comes back with "But mathmathmath!" or "It won't really impact the meta!" I wonder if they're even reading our posts...

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:
This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.

What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.

What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.

This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.

Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?

Nah, you're getting it twisted. A rule, stratagem, point value, etc. can be changed with the sole intention to adjust faction power level in an effort to shift faction power dynamic / adjust the meta. These types of changes do not have to be mutually exclusive to fixing / amending game mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not an effort to fix what is broken, but rather to push around the meta in an effort to level out faction win rates. That's why the content of the Balance Dataslate feels so odd. GW's intention isn't to fix things with this. They're looking at what factions win and what factions lose and then buff or de-buff to level out win rates.

How are those mutually exclusive in the slightest, Oni?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
How are those mutually exclusive in the slightest, Oni?

I don't understand your question. I said changes do NOT have to be mutually exclusive to fixes.

 oni wrote:

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:
This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.

What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.

What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.

This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.

Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?

Nah, you're getting it twisted. A rule, stratagem, point value, etc. can be changed with the sole intention to adjust faction power level in an effort to shift faction power dynamic / adjust the meta. These types of changes do not have to be mutually exclusive to fixing / amending game mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not an effort to fix what is broken, but rather to push around the meta in an effort to level out faction win rates.

You've lost me. How does writing a universal special rule for bodyguard 'push the meta around?'
How does hammering the hive guard with nerfs, then further nerfing Indirect Fire (nigh)universally before the codex even comes out, affect faction win rates? We don't even have numbers for new nids yet, but turns out there was a trap door in the hive guard's new anticipated position (on the shelf).
And tyrant guard weren't exactly busting up the meta, nor were they poised to do so, regardless of their new rules or the outside-the-book changes to their actual job.

I just don't get how you arrive at the idea a document that is primarily amendments (regardless of their quality) to game mechanics isn't actually for that.

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:
This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.

What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.

What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.

This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.

Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?

Nah, you're getting it twisted. A rule, stratagem, point value, etc. can be changed with the sole intention to adjust faction power level in an effort to shift faction power dynamic / adjust the meta. These types of changes do not have to be mutually exclusive to fixing / amending game mechanics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's not an effort to fix what is broken, but rather to push around the meta in an effort to level out faction win rates.

You've lost me. How does writing a universal special rule for bodyguard 'push the meta around?'
How does hammering the hive guard with nerfs, then further nerfing Indirect Fire (nigh)universally before the codex even comes out, affect faction win rates? We don't even have numbers for new nids yet, but turns out there was a trap door in the hive guard's new anticipated position (on the shelf).
And tyrant guard weren't exactly busting up the meta, nor were they poised to do so, regardless of their new rules or the outside-the-book changes to their actual job.

Let me put it like this... If the Balance Dataslate's intention is to fix broken game mechanics... What was it about AM that was OP broken and needed 'fixed' with auto-wound 6's, Russ 2+ saves, etc.? Why change Indirect Fire, but then give AM an exemption? AM was not OP, they were lack luster, they needed help; TO WIN games. Same for C:SM's; same for Necrons, etc., etc. Harlequins... They're winning to easily, so they need to be taken down a peg or two or three. Custodes needed to be taken down a peg. What specifically is or is not changed doesn't matter. Everything presented in the Balance Dataslate is solely an effort to lift or lower a factions win rate.

The point is for most people 40k isn't solely about winning and losing.
It's about fighting battles in the 41st millenium.

So mechanics who's sole purpose is to fix competitive balance are neat, but when they come at a direct cost of representing battles in the 41st millenium they do more harm than good for those people.

Unrealistic gamey mechanics is a complaint you might have seen crop up a couple of times already on this forum.
This rebalance dived right in on more of those.

@Oni
That seems.. reductive.

The changes to IF and bodyguard literally can't push the meta to change win rates- they affect under-performing and over-performing factions the same way. And some factions not at all, because they don't have those things (or aren't worth using so they aren't even part of the meta problems).
And, yes, broken by underpowered is just as bad as broken by overpowered. Both need fixing.

Yes, some rules changes are going to change win rates. But there's a lot of the game outside 'the meta,' and these changes still have an effect if Timmy and Sally are just knocking their 500 pt starter armies together.