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.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about Armour of Contempt and Hammer of the Emperor, Astra Militarum and Space Marines aren't really making a splash.

The "wailing and gnashing of teeth" over AoC and HotE aren't because we thought they'd suddenly make their respective faction OP, but because they're stupid rules.

EightFoldPath wrote:
In a system where the factions rise and fall, shouldn't each codex spend some amount of time in the bottom 50%???

So at some point shouldn't DE be in the bottom 50%???

No. What you're proposing is vengeance-based balancing. 51% win rate is probably fine. There are other problems to worry about.

So all de positions should be 1-59 in 120 player tournament?

tneva82 wrote:
So all de positions should be 1-59 in 120 player tournament?

If they don't top 4 too much then it's not a problem. I think Drukhari need nerfs to their stats and abilities, but so does every other faction, including Astra Militarum.

tneva82 wrote:
So all de positions should be 1-59 in 120 player tournament?

He isn't saying that. He's saying that 40k is a game where codex's tend to turn up, make a splash competitively, and then begin to burn out until they are replaced. A healthy (ish) system where everyone gets some of the limelight before stepping aside for someone else.

What we have here is a dex that's been influencing the meta for well over a year and the nerfs given to them are entirely inconsistent with those given to other factions. Ad Mech and Orks got nerfed into oblivion, whereas DE got mildly inconvenienced.

DE has either greatly overstayed in the top half of the meta, it's an indicator of GW staff being unfairly biased toward DE, or GW showing that they have no intention of giving DE a new book any time in the next five years so they need to make the most out of it.

Yeah, the ork nerfs or rather how heavy handed there were and the unexplainable constant nerfs to DG have this 9th ed GK nerf wibe, which I just can't explain. Is it because there was some sort of rule or book that got cut, and which was then suppose to be balanced by the nerfs, which were planed in advanced? And now without those extra rules orks and DG are just getting clobbered. It is just as bizzar as the amount of time GW takes to reign in any new eldar book.

tneva82 wrote:
So all de positions should be 1-59 in 120 player tournament?

please learn basic statistics and probability before claiming that a 51% winrate means every player ends up in the top half of the rankings...

 Afrodactyl wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So all de positions should be 1-59 in 120 player tournament?

He isn't saying that. He's saying that 40k is a game where codex's tend to turn up, make a splash competitively, and then begin to burn out until they are replaced. A healthy (ish) system where everyone gets some of the limelight before stepping aside for someone else.

That's incorrect and an incredible whitewashing of what he's saying.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
What we have here is a dex that's been influencing the meta for well over a year and the nerfs given to them are entirely inconsistent with those given to other factions. Ad Mech and Orks got nerfed into oblivion, whereas DE got mildly inconvenienced.

DE has either greatly overstayed in the top half of the meta, it's an indicator of GW staff being unfairly biased toward DE, or GW showing that they have no intention of giving DE a new book any time in the next five years so they need to make the most out of it.

You have spite for Dark Eldar as a faction/playerbase, instead of GW, when it's GW writing the bad rules.

I'd say there is reasonable evidence AoC has made a splash. It hasn't however made such factions dominant, because of the somewhat ludicrous power in the newer codexes.

But quick, lets try and get DE down to a 45% win rate. Then no one will play them competitively, and I guess some people will be happy for a while.

Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

An english language question, which maybe useful for the future for me. When someone asks "do you have an ability that does something in the fight phase" to they mean it as in right now being active or one you could activate in some way, when the fights starts or something else happens.

Also is the expected anwser to the question a list of all thing the player can do? Or is it considered okey to mention one. For example a marine player could say that he can always strike back in melee, if he dies as long as he has the CP to pay for it.

Karol wrote:
An english language question, which maybe useful for the future for me. When someone asks "do you have an ability that does something in the fight phase" to they mean it as in right now being active or one you could activate in some way, when the fights starts or something else happens.

Also is the expected anwser to the question a list of all thing the player can do? Or is it considered okey to mention one. For example a marine player could say that he can always strike back in melee, if he dies as long as he has the CP to pay for it.

if someone asks that, he obviously mean for the whole duration of the fight phase, not just "RIGHT NOW" when the question is asked.

And the correct answer to such a question is to say what you can do (fight first /fight on death/ fight lasts/etc.)

Thats my main problem with 40k, theres so much crap thrown on top of the datasheet that making an informed decision relies on your opponent listing all the strats/auras/relics/wlt they have access to. If the game was much simpler, a quick glance at the datasheet would be all thats needed for me to make my move

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

Thanks, I am asking because english doesn't seem to be very clear about stuff like that. I would have to avoid the MtG problems where saying okey at the wrong point can mean pass and you losing the entire turn. Plus it gives insight in to how the rules are writen for the game.

And while I don't think, this specific case of BT player, is someone afflicted with "forgot too complicated rules". I do agree that fewer rules overlays, would make it easier for the opponent to keep track of stuff. In general a lot of the DE and later books feel, as if the design team was inventing w40k all from scratch back again. And even if stuff is kind of a the same, they for some reason love to do small tweeks to rules to make them different or change the names.

Karol wrote:
I would have to avoid the MtG problems where saying okey at the wrong point can mean pass and you losing the entire turn.

thankfully the issue (i'm assuming you're reffering to) was fixed after a lot of backlash online


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

And while I don't think, this specific case of BT player, is someone afflicted with "forgot too complicated rules". I do agree that fewer rules overlays, would make it easier for the opponent to keep track of stuff. In general a lot of the DE and later books feel, as if the design team was inventing w40k all from scratch back again. And even if stuff is kind of a the same, they for some reason love to do small tweeks to rules to make them different or change the names.

I still cannot play Admech because it's got too many layers of rules with multiple stages for me to fully understand what the army is doing. I don't think its ALL codexes after DE that got overly complex tho. TS/GK are pretty simple (if you have the psychic cards to display buffs) Aeldari is also relatively simple

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

Reading the link was pretty infuriating.

You know stuff like this sure was easier to catch back in the 3rd-4th ed days, when weapons lists weren't nearly as long and fight phases used Initiative.

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

Where have you seen this? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than a token number of TOs or streamers would suggest not calling a judge.

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

There's literally 0 people who have this attitude.

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

Everyone I've seen say that you should call a TO and to call people on their gak. It's not calling a TO that's bad for the community, it's cheating, calling the TO is combatting cheating and therefore good for the community.

ERJAK wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

There's literally 0 people who have this attitude.

There's a lot of people who will flame you for being a "rules lawyer." People will say "that's not the way its intended" when you enforce rules and it allows stuff like this to happen. Until GW tightens up their language so it is clear and consistent, this kind of stuff will continue to happen...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Where have you seen this? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than a token number of TOs or streamers would suggest not calling a judge.

WarGames Live for one.

There is a difference between being a rule lawyer, that is someone that is blatantly trying to break RAI by twisting RAW, and reporting someone for cheating.

Admittedly there is a gray area when it comes to badly written rules, but those cases also resolved by talking with a judge.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Where have you seen this? I'd be absolutely shocked if more than a token number of TOs or streamers would suggest not calling a judge.

WarGames Live for one.

That is blatantly misrepresenting his position.
He doesn't call over judges if the chat, or he, seems something because a game on stream should be no different from any other game.
He has nothing against pointing out mistakes in chat but doesn't want chat to keep harping on it because it adds nothing and people are there to watch some fun warhammer.

And no point, has he ever insinuated that as a player on the table, you should not call a judge if you suspect anything or believe someone is intentionally misremember rules. Infact he has repeated said that there is nothing wrong with calling for a judge and that the stigma in the community against calling a judge over for something needs to go away.

If you disagree and think he has said for players at the table to not call a judge, go and link the youtube clip, its all on there.

 DominayTrix wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

There's literally 0 people who have this attitude.

There's a lot of people who will flame you for being a "rules lawyer." People will say "that's not the way its intended" when you enforce rules and it allows stuff like this to happen. Until GW tightens up their language so it is clear and consistent, this kind of stuff will continue to happen...

Not sure how amending the rules language is going to fix someone mis-representing weapon statistics, going by the claims in this thread.

Of course, if the BT had his 'dex & supplement with him, his opponent could've asked to check the books to confirm...

 Ordana wrote:
That is blatantly misrepresenting his position.
He doesn't call over judges if the chat, or he, seems something because a game on stream should be no different from any other game.
He has nothing against pointing out mistakes in chat but doesn't want chat to keep harping on it because it adds nothing and people are there to watch some fun warhammer.

"doesn't want people to keep harping on it" is a cute way of saying "wants to pretend that cheating isn't happening." He's invested in promoting this sort of toxic positivity about the community. He times out and bans people who point out misplays or cheating.

 Ordana wrote:
And no point, has he ever insinuated that as a player on the table, you should not call a judge if you suspect anything or believe someone is intentionally misremember rules. Infact he has repeated said that there is nothing wrong with calling for a judge and that the stigma in the community against calling a judge over for something needs to go away.

He thinks that spectators (live or remote) shouldn't call judges if they see misplays or cheating. I'd bet he also really has a problem with players doing it, because it feths up his image of the community as this kumbaya circle.

I tend to agree that spectators shouldn't interfere with games. A game has to be between the two players imo and the onus should be on them to overcome any issues that arise.

(issues that cross legal boundaries notwithstanding)

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Worth noting that the guy who played BT made several favorable rules mistakes.

It blows my mind that the game is so damned complicated that even highly-competitive players have to ask questions like 'do you have an ability that does X', and a cheater can cheat repeatedly across multiple games in a variety of ways without anybody noticing at the time.

FLG sets a standard nearly no enforcement and nearly no punishment. To a point where it is worth considering if belligerence and soft-core cheating should be considered intended behavior, since they keep rewarding it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

True. It doesn't help that there's basically zero penalty most of the time. The same player was also getting multiple rules wrong playing Necrons in a previous tournament. Bizarrely, they were always in his favour.

There's a lot of people in the in the community (TO's, streamers, etc) who have this attitude of "Just suck it up and play along if your opponent is cheating you, you're making the community look bad by getting a judge involved."

There's literally 0 people who have this attitude.

Well that's just a lie, and not even a decent one :/

Telling people not to call a judge and telling spectators to not interfere in a game are very different positions.

In our tournaments we have rules that forbid spectators of a game to interfere in any way, including pointing out rules mistakes. Spectators are meant to be completely invisible, their presence or absence at a table should not alter the game results. At most they can answer rule questions.