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.

Karol wrote:
I was not joking. We could have had a good 5-6 pages of argument about how much does the marine noob effect impact the marine win rates. I could learn new words, and see pages of text and have a good time reading it.

And here one dude sits down, takes a few thousand results of games. Makes a graph, and say this is how it is, if you don't agree show your graphs, and lets face it, no one is going to do that. Lost content IMO.

What about scientific arguments?

Dudeface 807353 11445757 wrote:

Simplifying it down loads, they've passed the first exam on maintaining balance. They now need to work on the internal stuff inside books as noted, but as we know there isn't much point at this stage as you say. Fingers crossed they'll learn and 10th will start at this level of parity.

But marine problems aren't internal IF and RG have sub 30% win rates. The 39% in the GW data only exists, because they dropped all non named marines in to the same bucket. And I don't think an IF player wants to hear the stuff, some people were being told at the start of 8th, where marines were fine as long as you took G-man, some razorbacks and stormravens and run a full re-roll army. And GW will not "learn" anything from this, because the problem with updating the rules come not from what the rules are, but how GW writes them and updates them. When there is a span of years between books being updated and the rules for all of them are not set in stone day 1 of a new edition, we get stuff we get every edition. Armies waiting for year for an update, other armies getting slap on the wrist nerfs and when GW really fixes something, it more often then not means that the faction just got killed. On top of that they have a copy paste way of writing rules, so stuff accumulates. Armies that got good rules over and over again, get better and better rules. While those GW is experimenting or trying to do cool stuff, end up like GSC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:


What about scientific arguments?

From what I have learned from dakka. A people don't like them. Especialy if they themselfs no nothing or very little about the subject B using them means you can get in to trouble C most people can not make them or can't make them properly D often when they are made properly vide the example linked, they are clear, but often boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 807353 11445716 wrote:
The best of the best will simply play something else & do quite well.
Meanwhile noobs will still pick up bad (now worse?) armies & continue having a bad time.

The best of the best don't play bad armies. GW doesn't get any data from them, and there for doesn't know how the fix or even if they need, or don't need to fix them. I always found it odd that noobs of some other factions, don't seem to have problems playing their armies. For example, as the linked graphs showed, a veteran eldar player doesn't get very different results , in win rates, then a new player. So this means that something has to impact the win rate for such an army. On the other hand ad mecha have a gigantic gap between the few world rank players who had high win rates, and everyone else.
necron have a ton of new players, same as tyranids. First timers as far as tournaments goes, and yet they are winning games. Seems like skill is the deciding factor in good vs good army on top players, and in most other situations, relative army power can get you really far.


On unrelated matters. Isn't it funny how GW pulled a DE style nerf vs tyranids, players have already been moving on to Kraken lists, and here comes GW with its hammer to pummel poor leviathan. Its is like GW nerfing DG, for their crimes against humanity or DE getting their non meat mountain stuff nerfed, when they were already playing meat mountain.

So non-Monster Synapse creatures in Leviathan just have zero benefits now?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
My favourite quote is the bit where they say they've removed Core from Necron vehicles to prevent Technomancers resurrecting Command Barges...which was never a thing because that's not how the Technomancer works. Do you even read your own rules, GW?

They could resurrect menhirs.

They still can. Menhirs aren't CHARACTER models, and thus, keep CORE.

Nope, Menhirs are on the same datasheet as the king, which is a character.
Remember that the dataslate does not add CORE to profiles, it adds CORE to every vehicle Datasheet.

Karol wrote:
And this is why scientists should not be allowed in to areas where arguments happen. They destroy any fun and joy from them, with their factors, logic and data.

Unbalanced game hurts the casual players more. Balanced game is win for everybody except for GW's profit line.

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:
And this is why scientists should not be allowed in to areas where arguments happen. They destroy any fun and joy from them, with their factors, logic and data.

Unbalanced game hurts the casual players more. Balanced game is win for everybody except for GW's profit line.

Well in the astra militarum thread flavour and fun outweigh balance at the moment.

Dudeface wrote:
Well in the astra militarum thread flavour and fun outweigh balance at the moment.

Is it? 4 of each special weapons is unbalanced all of a sudden?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


At some point I think GW needs to divorce the points from the core SM book and have individual cost for every SM datasheet bound to each specific subfaction. Terminators cost X for core marines, Y for Ultramarines, Z for Dark Angels, and so on and so on. Same would have to go for every single supplemental subfaction in the Space Marine codex, because otherwise you risk side effects.

Absolutely a terrible idea. We don't need special snowflake crap for everything, because that's how we end up with 4+ Terminator unit entries. And now you want to add DIFFERENT point cost per faction as though Dark Angels don't do that to begin with for terrible results?

You're wrong, but you're always very passionate about being wrong. If you could try being passionate about being right in the future, it'd be appreciated.

Different Chapters have different bonuses which have different value on different units. At the moment, as was referenced earlier in the thread, you can't cleanly amend how a unit that is OP or UP in one or two Chapters is priced (or behaves, if you're going for a rules tweak) without a knock-on impact on other Chapters that may not need the nerf/boost to that unit.

It can only improve balance* if you give the option to address balance that way. I'm not sure how you'd approach pricing for custom Chapters, though, assuming they stick around in the next version of the core SM 'dex.

* - Assuming competent implementation, of course, which isn't a given.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well in the astra militarum thread flavour and fun outweigh balance at the moment.

Is it? 4 of each special weapons is unbalanced all of a sudden?

Your direct response to me showing an army is balanced via win rate was:

So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book.

Then prioritised customisation and further responses from others were about how it doesn't matter if it's not a fun book.

Flavour and fun are the bedrock, even if two armies are balanced against each other in terms of win rate it can still be unfun. Most things can be mostly balanced, Knights are harder to balance than Space Marines, but not impossible, but no amount of changing points can make unfun mechanics more fun, things like excessive bloat, extreme lethality, arbitrary limitation of previously legal unit options and so forth. GW couldn't even balance tesla against gauss on Necron Immortals, that's one unit replacing one gun for another, so the argument that limitation of options will somehow be the cure to GW's balance issues is nonsense.

The Black Adder wrote:
MAdmech:
I'm not sure I care much about the change to the single stratagem for admech. I thought the original nerf to enriched rounds was OTT, being a double whammy of increased CP cost and reduced effect. The version in the last balance data slate felt fine, this change makes it feel like a good stratagem, and maybe that's ok.

How can anybody argue that unnerfed enriched rounds is okay? It multiplies damage by 40%, 67% or 111% depending on Toughness. It causes between 0,5 and 0,83 wounds per Ranger, that's up to 16,7 wounds for 1CP. That is insane, we were over this when AdMech first came out for crying out loud. And you call the nerf over the top, over the top would have been changing it to 4CP, not halving its crazy output.

 vict0988 wrote:
Flavour and fun are the bedrock, even if two armies are balanced against each other in terms of win rate it can still be unfun. Most things can be mostly balanced, Knights are harder to balance than Space Marines, but not impossible, but no amount of changing points can make unfun mechanics more fun, things like excessive bloat, extreme lethality, arbitrary limitation of previously legal unit options and so forth. GW couldn't even balance tesla against gauss on Necron Immortals, that's one unit replacing one gun for another, so the argument that limitation of options will somehow be the cure to GW's balance issues is nonsense.

I don't disagree and limiting options often won't make any difference, but this is the balance dataslate for the health of competitive 40k; whether that's wise or not is a different topic, not an attempt to add fun and life to unit options.

For however many years there's been endless complaints that the game wasn't balanced, too many outliers, too many OP releases and so on. They've finally got the game fairly stable and looking reasonably balanced in terms of ability to compete at events, which again, is a strong yardstick for most of this forum and the community, but it's suddenly not good enough now they've managed it for the most part.

I would agree the next step is likely "make things fun and/or diverse via internal balance", but they're likely trying to bring in the outliers which will be this dataslate. I dare say it isn't enough and marines need more. After that there'll be 2 more dataslates and then 10th ed. I'd speculate that 10th ed being a "reset" edition is likely to be in a place where they can maintain a similar status quo on launch day with reasonably balanced meta then hopefully add to it as they go, rather than having to learn the basics on the job (9th).

tneva82 wrote:
Unbalanced game hurts the casual players more. Balanced game is win for everybody except for GW's profit line.

For what it is worth, with our local custom ruleset I can observe two things:
- Matched play / Tournament only players stick with 9th edition and buy / play whatever is meta for their armies.
- Casuals who play Homebrew bring out their whole collection and / or aquire new units and armies. I think I've seen the whole Guard codex at this point including Ogryns, Crusaders and Rough Riders. None of them were deemed unfun or unusable.

My impression is that a more internally and externally balanced ruleset would have the following effects:
- Tournament players would stick to whatever is the best for the current meta. Without sweeping changes that will form a new meta regularely, the incentive to buy new stuff isn't there.
- Casuals who are invested enough to know about internal balance would buy more, as there is no "shooting into your own foot" by buying a bunch of models you think look cool but play horribly.
- Casuals who simply collect what they like would not change at all.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


At some point I think GW needs to divorce the points from the core SM book and have individual cost for every SM datasheet bound to each specific subfaction. Terminators cost X for core marines, Y for Ultramarines, Z for Dark Angels, and so on and so on. Same would have to go for every single supplemental subfaction in the Space Marine codex, because otherwise you risk side effects.

Absolutely a terrible idea. We don't need special snowflake crap for everything, because that's how we end up with 4+ Terminator unit entries. And now you want to add DIFFERENT point cost per faction as though Dark Angels don't do that to begin with for terrible results?

It kind of feels like you don't understand how Knock-On Effect works.
It is that solution OR we remove every single subfaction/flavor supplement from the game to accommodate a singular codex winrates(which has aforementioned Knock-on effect). Which might not be acceptable by anyone who plays those different rainbow burst flavor chapters and for the sake of disclosure I am a filthy Dark Angels player. First Chapter, Best Chapter and all that.

Also, with Dark Angels actually performing better than the core codex how exactly are they a "terrible" result? I mean, I understand if you feel like it is a terrible result, but that is ultimately not reflected by the faction in the current state of the game.

 vict0988 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
MAdmech:
I'm not sure I care much about the change to the single stratagem for admech. I thought the original nerf to enriched rounds was OTT, being a double whammy of increased CP cost and reduced effect. The version in the last balance data slate felt fine, this change makes it feel like a good stratagem, and maybe that's ok.

How can anybody argue that unnerfed enriched rounds is okay? It multiplies damage by 40%, 67% or 111% depending on Toughness. It causes between 0,5 and 0,83 wounds per Ranger, that's up to 16,7 wounds for 1CP. That is insane, we were over this when AdMech first came out for crying out loud. And you call the nerf over the top, over the top would have been changing it to 4CP, not halving its crazy output.

I don't know if you mistyped in your post above but the information you've posted is wrong. Rangers don't really get any benefit from enriched rounds. That stratagem only really benefits vanguard as it's effects only apply to radium weapons. Vanguard also already get 6s to hit auto wound.

The result of the last balance dataslate was a 39% win rate for admech so your incredulity aside there wasn't really an issue with the stratagem at 1cp for 5s to hit auto wound.

They just need to buff IF's suite of special subfaction rules. In a sort of mirror of how they've nerfed Leviathan.

You could argue every codex should contain different points by the various subfaction - but this seems messy. The various subfactions should be be - in the round - about as powerful as each other. Which doesn't seem impossible to do via iteration.

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:
And this is why scientists should not be allowed in to areas where arguments happen. They destroy any fun and joy from them, with their factors, logic and data.

Unbalanced game hurts the casual players more. Balanced game is win for everybody except for GW's profit line.

GW doesn't care about the balance of the game. There maybe some faction favouritism in the studio, but that is more or less it. If GW cared about balanced they wouldn't let factions stay in 30% or under win rates for months or even years.
From the way I see it GW way of participating in what they call The Hobby, is not playing the game. But it is buying and owning multiple armies, preferably across multiple games, in case a system is in its bad moment. Ah and you really have to like the non gaming elements of The Hobby, because if you do not the enjoyment of playing a single faction can drop to zero.

Also, with Dark Angels actually performing better than the core codex how exactly are they a "terrible" result? I mean, I understand if you feel like it is a terrible result, but that is ultimately not reflected by the faction in the current state of the game.

Non marine faction from the loyalist group is at or over 50%. meaning all of them are weaker then the avarge army. And it can't be all explained with noob faction. And even if was, then why doesn't GW just adjust the game. Leave all the marines the way they are now, no changes, and then put a veteran god player on all over 50% faction. Rules nerfs, point hikes etc just so the marine noobs have a chance at fun, while all the veteran non marine players can just balance it with their superior skills. And the non marine noobs? Well they should have started learning the game by playing and buying a 2000pts marine army, and once they are good players move on to something else. There is absolutly no excusse to have a faction like IF with 25 or 27% win rates, and the fix to it being. an extra VP per turn, but not the first turn, on a very conditional secondary, which is hard to do for a ton of marine lists in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
They just need to buff IF's suite of special subfaction rules. In a sort of mirror of how they've nerfed Leviathan.

You could argue every codex should contain different points by the various subfaction - but this seems messy. The various subfactions should be be - in the round - about as powerful as each other. Which doesn't seem impossible to do via iteration.

But IF are not a subfaction. They have their own codex. They do have to use the marine book too, but that has nothing to do with what ever they are a faction or not, but more with GW forcing their biggest group of buyers to get two books instead of one just to start playing an army.

The result of the last balance dataslate was a 39% win rate for admech so your incredulity aside there wasn't really an issue with the stratagem at 1cp for 5s to hit auto wound.

It is worth to point out, that even post nerf Ad Mecha won GT and had high placements. It is just that the army went from mechanicaly over 2000pts in what it can do, to very hard to play for the avarge player, including tournament ones. There is no one winning or placing high with IF the entire 9th ed. And even with other loyalists, it is often better to play succesors, for example of RG, then the actual core chapter itself.

If I play an internally balanced army in a meta where there is a lot of poison and vehicles I'll acquire vehicles with anti-vehicle firepower, if my local meta reacts and uses more anti-vehicle melee infantry I'll switch over to infantry with flamers.

If I play an internally imbalanced army in a meta where there is a lot of poison and vehicles I'll use my infantry with flamers, if my local meta switches over to anti-vehicle melee infantry I'll keep using my infantry with flamers but my win rate will just go up. I'll never even put my anti-vehicle vehicles in my eyes because I know that my faction is internally imbalanced enough that regardless of my local meta those vehicles are still going to be bad (assuming anti-vehicle vehicles lost the coinflip this edition.

This in addition to fewer players quitting for lack of balance is why I conclude that internally balanced codexes will sell better.

Dudeface wrote:
For however many years there's been endless complaints that the game wasn't balanced, too many outliers, too many OP releases and so on. They've finally got the game fairly stable and looking reasonably balanced in terms of ability to compete at events, which again, is a strong yardstick for most of this forum and the community, but it's suddenly not good enough now they've managed it for the most part.

I have been complaining about badly written rules for just as long as I have complained about balance. SM having a worse win rate than Necrons does not make gauss flayers any less awful against SM. I can ignore cover to get them down to a 3+ with a Strat I guess it's just painfully underwhelming considering all their anti-vehicle power has been changed to a 1CP Strat that gives hits on 6s auto-wound.

Tyel wrote:
As others have said, it kind of just highlights GW's issue.

Yes some factions are still a bad spot (although new codex for Guard soon) - but balance is broadly in a good spot. So just spinning the wheel would feel something like an act of vandalism.

But if you are increasingly burnt out with 9th edition tournament meta, this just feels like "no big changes until 10th edition this summer". Its not even all that interesting to read about because you can't moan about faction X being OP and winning all the tournaments.

Just think about those poor fethers who have been playing on the GW layout for an year because dumb TO spout "IT'S THE OFFICIAL LAYOUT" when you try to point out that it sucks, with Primary missions that have remained pretty much unchanged in two years.

Karol wrote:
I was not joking. We could have had a good 5-6 pages of argument about how much does the marine noob effect impact the marine win rates. I could learn new words, and see pages of text and have a good time reading it.

And here one dude sits down, takes a few thousand results of games. Makes a graph, and say this is how it is, if you don't agree show your graphs, and lets face it, no one is going to do that. Lost content IMO.

I think the marine noob effect might be slightly overstated. Yes it will effect win rates, but how many noobs are entering GTs? Granted there will be a few, but enough to drag the % down by a considerable amount?

They're definitely a noob-friendly army by virtue of being in all the boxes sets and all the media, etc, but I suspect that the book being weak relative to others is the main burden the faction faces.

This is without me looking at sales numbers and win rates, so this is purely my speculation.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well in the astra militarum thread flavour and fun outweigh balance at the moment.

Is it? 4 of each special weapons is unbalanced all of a sudden?

Your direct response to me showing an army is balanced via win rate was:

So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book.

Then prioritised customisation and further responses from others were about how it doesn't matter if it's not a fun book.

I don't think this is saying what you seem to think it's saying.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

Karol wrote:
I was not joking. We could have had a good 5-6 pages of argument about how much does the marine noob effect impact the marine win rates. I could learn new words, and see pages of text and have a good time reading it.

And here one dude sits down, takes a few thousand results of games. Makes a graph, and say this is how it is, if you don't agree show your graphs, and lets face it, no one is going to do that. Lost content IMO.

I think the marine noob effect might be slightly overstated. Yes it will effect win rates, but how many noobs are entering GTs? Granted there will be a few, but enough to drag the % down by a considerable amount?

They're definitely a noob-friendly army by virtue of being in all the boxes sets and all the media, etc, but I suspect that the book being weak relative to others is the main burden the faction faces.

This is without me looking at sales numbers and win rates, so this is purely my speculation.

I think it is grossly overstated. GW wants to tell us that all the new marine players from all the marine factions that they can choose. Leave BA to the veterans and focus on starting IF armies. I assume it is because everyone loves to paint yellow.

On page one there was a link to an article which shown the differences in win rates, between people who have been to their first GT and who have attended multiple ones. And some factions, GSC, GK and Eldar show very small gaps between the win rates. Low on high win rates, this means the army more or less plays itself. Then there are armies like Ad Mecha which have a gigantic difference between win rates of first timers and GT veterans. Marines, being the most popular faction , with win rates exactly the same as Ad Mecha should be similar. But they are not. Marines vets and noobs are not expiriancing big win rate differences, and well under the avarge for all factions.

And yes I guess someone could say that the data is skewed, by new GT players maybe being some crack store event veterans and the GT regulars being dudes who want to make advertisment for their paint studios with wonderful looking armies. But it is the data we have. And saying that marines do bad , because new players play them is just wrong. On top of that, if GW knows that, why not adjust the rules for it? They had what 2 years+ development time durning 8th to test for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

I have been complaining about badly written rules for just as long as I have complained about balance. SM having a worse win rate than Necrons does not make gauss flayers any less awful against SM. I can ignore cover to get them down to a 3+ with a Strat I guess it's just painfully underwhelming considering all their anti-vehicle power has been changed to a 1CP Strat that gives hits on 6s auto-wound.

So you want auto complet secondaries and be have the fire power of lets say eldar or tau, at the same time? A proper build necron army has no problem to get 95VP in every game. A marine army can do that, but not to a good army, only if the opponent forgets a shoting and melee phase. And in some cases like marine vs creation of Bile, it is an auto lose for the best marine builds that exist out there. A weaker marine army or a non optimised marine army, has no reason to even play the game, because it will get tabled.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well in the astra militarum thread flavour and fun outweigh balance at the moment.

Is it? 4 of each special weapons is unbalanced all of a sudden?

Your direct response to me showing an army is balanced via win rate was:

So it has a consistent win rate. Big deal. The 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was plenty powerful - it was the era of Fzorgle, after all - but that didn't make it a good book.

Then prioritised customisation and further responses from others were about how it doesn't matter if it's not a fun book.

I don't think this is saying what you seem to think it's saying.

I think it's saying that if we're talking about pure competitive balance and the ability of an army to compete at an event then for the purposes of a competitive balance dataslate, then it's all good. How the army "feels" or whether it's well written isn't the same thing as it's ability to compete fairly at an event. Obviously a well written flavourful internally balanced codex sitting at an external balance point of 45-55% is the ideal, but that's not what this about.

Opinions about this seems to be muddled, I think what this document represents means different thing to different people, we almost need a statement of intent in writing from GW to cover what it should or should not be doing.

I suspect the issue is not only that "noobs" are in the faction - its that "Pro's" leave it. I think its quite common for people to move to a second army - that happens (usually) to be one that's performing reasonably well at the moment. And if the people who care more about the game - and so are propping Marine win% up leave, you are left with people who are weaker and will likely continue to be weaker because they aren't that bothered.

I'm sure some people are out there trying to make competitive IF work - but realistically, if you want to win a tournament, with a Marines army, you are not using IF rules. Even if your Marines are painted Yellow. There's nothing stopping you beyond "I don't really care about winning, I just love IF lore". Which is fine - but its going to weigh on the win%.

We don't break down Sisters of Battle win% to work out if idk, Ebon Chalice sucks. We just assume that if you are playing Sisters "properly" in the current rules, you are almost certainly going Bloody Rose because it's the best.

Do they exclude "mirror" matches in the win rate data? I didn't see that noted anywhere.

Tyel wrote:I suspect the issue is not only that "noobs" are in the faction - its that "Pro's" leave it. I think its quite common for people to move to a second army - that happens (usually) to be one that's performing reasonably well at the moment. And if the people who care more about the game - and so are propping Marine win% up leave, you are left with people who are weaker and will likely continue to be weaker because they aren't that bothered.

We don't break down Sisters of Battle win% to work out if idk, Ebon Chalice sucks. We just assume that if you are playing Sisters "properly" in the current rules, you are almost certainly going Bloody Rose because it's the best.

These are two very good points probably not covered by the data.

Ork-en Man wrote:Do they exclude "mirror" matches in the win rate data? I didn't see that noted anywhere.

Also a good question. I would imagine that they do, because otherwise you would probably see the "S" tier armies win rates being waaaaay higher. I've personally found that mirror matches between similar lists are a big roadblock that most often comes down solely to RNG, so bizarrely the check to a lot of lists is probably the same list.

Karol wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I have been complaining about badly written rules for just as long as I have complained about balance. SM having a worse win rate than Necrons does not make gauss flayers any less awful against SM. I can ignore cover to get them down to a 3+ with a Strat I guess it's just painfully underwhelming considering all their anti-vehicle power has been changed to a 1CP Strat that gives hits on 6s auto-wound.

So you want auto complet secondaries and be have the fire power of lets say eldar or tau, at the same time? A proper build necron army has no problem to get 95VP in every game. A marine army can do that, but not to a good army, only if the opponent forgets a shoting and melee phase. And in some cases like marine vs creation of Bile, it is an auto lose for the best marine builds that exist out there. A weaker marine army or a non optimised marine army, has no reason to even play the game, because it will get tabled.

I have said plenty of times I want no faction secondaries for anyone. I don't want the firepower of Eldar or Tau, I just don't think SM should be able to ignore my AP-1 because that is all I get on my gauss flayers, maybe I'd be fine with SM having AoC if gauss weapons auto-wounded on 6s to hit all the time and had 1 less AP. I have also said that I want Flayed Ones to be AP- instead of -1 so it's not like I'm unwilling to reduce the lethality of Necrons where it makes sense. I don't know what you think is bringing down Necron VP rates from 95, but it seems a little far-fetched, I don't know I haven't played the current competitive mission set. I want a balanced, thematic and fun game. Gauss flayers being trash is not fun or thematic, poisonous lasguns with armourbane aren't thematic either. Removing sensible curbs to the insane damage output of AdMech is not fun either.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I could fix Skitarii units in a night of caffeine-induced fervor. So could they. But it would involve really, really actually invalidating the codex in one pass.

honestly the problem isnt even the Skitarii half of the dex, it's that all cult mech units have basically zero synergy with the rest of the dex (and were nerfed because they were OP last edition)

They have zero synergy because they're still effectively tuned around the initial version of Canticles, based upon the number of units...but that was removed.

Unfortunately, until we have Electropriests moved to Troops or Servitors that aren't Kataphrons or any number of tweaks? It's going to be janky as hell.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So non-Monster Synapse creatures in Leviathan just have zero benefits now?

As written, yes. I imagine their FAQ inbox has a lot of email right now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They have zero synergy because they're still effectively tuned around the initial version of Canticles, based upon the number of units...but that was removed.

Unfortunately, until we have Electropriests moved to Troops or Servitors that aren't Kataphrons or any number of tweaks? It's going to be janky as hell.

What does moving Electropriests to Troops fix?