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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?

You're the host, and he's the only one that can't follow a simple "don't bring a tournament list" request? The answer would appear simple - don't invite him next time, and if he complains, explain why in words of one syllable...

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tyel wrote:
"Nothing matters" isnt the most fun prediction.
I mean if you dont think Marines will be top tier thats fine. It just raises the question of who you think will be. And why its Guard.

I think some marine lists will punch up to top tier, but just not with some disastrous win rate annihilating all before them. Iron hands might end up looking like late 8th lists again and both death/raven wing lists benefit a lot from the changes. But as it stands, I agree it'll be guard.

What changes do you think Deathwing benefits from? I mean a few points drops to their Command Squad characters, but that was pretty universal across the board. Ravenwing got the old school speeders, new speeders as generic price drops, and aircraft drops. The Freebie upgrades for Terminators?

Given their wonderfully abundant access to storm shields they're less bothered by the drop of AoC, have benefitted from both the free stuff and the removal of AoC on targets in turn and still get to walk around with permanent transhuman. They basically get to maintain well above average durability and got cheaper doing it.

 vict0988 wrote:


One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting.

Update once a week if they want/need to. The players will always be more creative than the rules writers. Having to wait a year because John found the newest wombo combo 2 days after the last update is no reason to wait a year.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting.

Update once a week if they want/need to. The players will always be more creative than the rules writers. Having to wait a year because John found the newest wombo combo 2 days after the last update is no reason to wait a year.

Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:


One yearly update to the game ought to be enough to make the game reasonably balanced assuming new releases are playtested prior to release and should create little fatigue and keep the game interesting.

Update once a week if they want/need to. The players will always be more creative than the rules writers. Having to wait a year because John found the newest wombo combo 2 days after the last update is no reason to wait a year.

Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.

Because drastic points differences or rules changes - or both at once can have dramatic effects. Beyond that, sometimes you just don't see something right away.


I think it's almost possible now to run a double deathstar list with Grandpappy and Papa Smurf each getting an entourage - especially with the nosedive on Aggressor pricing and upgrades. Bobby G force multiplies Assault Weapon Gravis pretty well, and Calgar pretty much is an Aggressor Captain. There isn't an Aggressor LT, but the Bladeguard version is now cheaper and a free upgrade (whoops) - The new SM ability also lends itself right into this. Stick one Heavy Intercessor or Assault Intercessor group with each Deathstar to trigger

The initial knee jerk reaction was all about the Free Thunderhammers and Multi-meltas, but no deeper dive on the Centurion Devs, Inceptors, Aggressors, Sniper Scouts was really done.

 vict0988 wrote:
Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.

It wouldn't necessarily create the combo. It might be purely a coincidence that someone finds a new combo shortly after the scheduled update. Or maybe the combo was there the whole time but not on anyone's radar because the units involved were in the "bad" category because of their point costs and the points update suddenly made it viable. Or maybe it's an interaction with something about the new missions that makes a previously-acceptable thing oppressive.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why would a points or mission update create a new wombo combo? New rules sources should still get a FAQ/Errata 1 month after release.

It wouldn't necessarily create the combo. It might be purely a coincidence that someone finds a new combo shortly after the scheduled update. Or maybe the combo was there the whole time but not on anyone's radar because the units involved were in the "bad" category because of their point costs and the points update suddenly made it viable. Or maybe it's an interaction with something about the new missions that makes a previously-acceptable thing oppressive.

People find combos just from half of a codex's rules being leaked.

The game isn't exactly complex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?

You're the host, and he's the only one that can't follow a simple "don't bring a tournament list" request? The answer would appear simple - don't invite him next time, and if he complains, explain why in words of one syllable...

Why should a Custodes player not be allowed to use Trajan?

 Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And groups can differ. I'm firmly of the mindset that I want to say "No, feth it. I'm using my Tyranid Codex, that I purchased, and the Tyranid cards, that I purchased, exactly as they are presented. Munitorum Manuals and "Balance" Dataslates be damned!", but not everyone in my group will see it that way. We have one guy who is big into tournaments. I had my group around to play 40k a while back, and specifically asked everyone in advance to not bring tournament lists. He showed up with a Trajan-led Custodes netdeck list. *shrugs* So... what can I do?

You're the host, and he's the only one that can't follow a simple "don't bring a tournament list" request? The answer would appear simple - don't invite him next time, and if he complains, explain why in words of one syllable...

On the other hand, he is using a Tyranid codex without changes. A Custodes player pretty much needs to bring a tournament list to have a chance against that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Why should a Custodes player not be allowed to use Trajan?

 Tyran wrote:
On the other hand, he is using a Tyranid codex without changes. A Custodes player pretty much needs to bring a tournament list to have a chance against that.

Oh my God... did you two have a bet for who could miss the point the most?

1. I never said he "couldn't use Trajan". I said to avoid bringing tournament lists.
2. This was well before the "balance" sheets and points changes came into effect.

Honestly...

Aecus Decimus wrote:


I think it's the opposite actually: GW isn't listening to tournament players enough. They're listening just enough to get into this weird cargo cult of "competitive" 40k where the know enough to parrot some of the language but don't understand any of it. It's why you get nice self-congratulatory win rate graphs but no apparent understanding of more advanced metagame analysis statistics, how to fine-tune a metagame without sweeping overreactions like the plane ban, or how to apply a competitive mindset to pre-release playtesting and keep the egregious balance mistakes from making it to print. Or how GW's cargo cult version of competitive play has quarterly balance updates because a competitive game is supposed to have regular balance updates, but they're still insisting on constraining those updates with the need to protect the cash cow of printed rulebooks and creating abominations like AoC and HotE because they aren't allowed to publish better solutions. And I'm sure in a couple months we'll see a Metawatch article on how everything is the best it's ever been because lots of people went to the LVO.

I think you are both partially correct. Its that GW is listening intently with full focus....to like 6-10 tournament players who by happenstance also have large websites/channels devoted to the game which somehow get leaked material from GW...and who also double as playtesters for the game....weird.

DE get tabled at a final...doesn't matter that the ork codex was still 3rd string to Ad-Mech and DE, an emergency patch had to be implemented which also hit weak units which those same websites/channels had predicted to be OP and break the game. *Stares in Mozrog* (still wish I could find an archived version of the video of the guy doing a full on panic attack on mozrog).

The problem is that a few competitive players have an absurd impact on the game, and unless those guys are fair and play your army...well, you are screwed.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To be fair to Karol, as weird and tone deaf as that was, the entire thread is based on "it's stupid marines get free upgrades! Look at my army! Look how evil and dumb GW is!"

More like "It's stupid that ANY army gets free upgrades. No way is a lascannon the same worth as a basic boltgun" (these weapons used as examples since everyone knows what they do because , guess what, Marines are the most commonly played faction)

I don't recall an outrage at lasguns being replaced with lascannons for free. But as shown in here you also cannot balance the points out to get the units to where they are now without screwing it up in some other way. If they'd just cut every point value for Marines by 30% giving us the units at the price they're at in this hypothetical meta but with numbers attached, I suspect you'd be less upset.

I can see the obvious issues for internal balance but the entire premise of the thread is the concern with external balance. Do 4 lascannons and a thunder hammer seem a problem at 115?

This entire thread is that GW is over correcting yet again and I'm betting that they become the new top dog (Minority opinion but I don't care I think I'm right). Its been hammered pretty hard but yeah people complained a lot about Free Lascannons and upgrades in general on IG...the difference here though is that I think i've played 2 IG players this entire edition, I literally can't count how many Marines i've played against...has to be close to 50-60.

As to your direct question. Yes, 4 lascannons which fire 5 times turn 1 and one has BS2 seem like a problem at 115pts. Only Ork unit that I think is fair to compare to is a Smasha Mek gun...so I can take 3 of those for 120pts...almost the same.

So turn 1: Against a T8 3+ vehicle.
Marine get 5 shots, 2 of them at BS2 because why wouldn't you double tap the Signum dude? So 5 shots, 3.66 hits, 2.44 wounds, 2 failed saves for 7dmg on average.

3 Smasha Guns: 6 shots, 3 hits, 1.5 wounds and 5.25dmg.

But lets be clear here, I don't think Dev squads are going to become the top meta choice, there are a lot of crazy options now. But lets look at the easiest way to break this. 3 dev squads clustered around a Captain/LT, or Girlyman. you now have 450-600pts bastion of deletion 15 shots turn 1, 6 hitting on 2s rerolling, 9 hitting on 3s, rerolling. So just shy of 14 hits, against T5-T8 its 10.7ish wounds, and against a 3+ save that is about 9 unsaved wounds for almost 31.5dmg for 645pts...and again, this still isn't even remotely close to the most broken thing I can think of.

Hell, a 170pt suicide melta squad of Sternguard in a drop pod have 3 combi meltas and 2 multi-meltas, Turn 2 you drop in and at 12' range you are pumping out 12-13dmg with ease against a T7 3+ target.

You could also just push out a Terminator assault squad with TH/SS to sit on an objective. Put them in cover on an objective and they functionally have 0+ armor, pretty cheap for a squad at 165pts.

I can keep going through this but its mostly all the same.

And Dudeface, to your last point that if Marines got a 30% price cut instead of free gear we wouldn't be complaining....umm yes, yes I would. Any "Buff" that i perceive as being too strong i'll always be vocal about. By no means am I perfect in my predictions but I believe I'm more often correct in my analysis.

And nobody wants to see 12pt Space Marines running around the board

Free special and heavy weapons would have been tolerable on Troops choices, and just as a means to help save a faction from drowning. Free weapons being given to basically half the factions in the game is not healthy for the game.

I've not played any games since the dataslate dropped and quite frankly I don't think I want to. Instead of removing half my models on turn one I can remove all of them instead. Or save myself the effort and just flip a coin to decide who wins and congratulate my opponent on a coin flip well played.

SemperMortis wrote:
The problem is that a few competitive players have an absurd impact on the game, and unless those guys are fair and play your army...well, you are screwed.

Has the forum created Schrödinger's Tournament Player?

Bother a meta hopper and devoted to one army depending on if we're talking about balance or selling models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Hell, a 170pt suicide melta squad of Sternguard in a drop pod have 3 combi meltas and 2 multi-meltas, Turn 2 you drop in and at 12' range you are pumping out 12-13dmg with ease against a T7 3+ target.

I think people are still missing free reserves and, I believe, every army has some sort of tool to interact with incoming units ( though no idea on WE yet ). Guard don't have a shooting strat, but can basically force something not to come in once. There's enough stuff that pushes to 12" that it becomes a potential liability to rely on being in 12".

Anything like that squad popping in on me is going to be met with AP2 bolters that don't have to worry about AoC any more.

Anyway, yes, free upgrades can be silly, but I am more interested in the outcome than the concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.

Your last sentence contradicts the rest. I am unsure if you intended to write it that way?

Mathhammer models what the weapons do. It doesn't model what happens on the table or what you face.

With no points your choice is now 'how can I beat my opponents' rather than 'how can I fit enough stuff to be effective'.

The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it, is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.

It's not perfect. Far from it, but at least they are a little cognizant of the situation with underpowered units.

In my mind, the ideal situation is that we'd have editions that would last 6 years instead of 3. The core rules don't need to change every 3 years. In fact, I've said it many times, the core rules of 9th edition are actually pretty solid. Movement, shooting, fighting, etc, are where they should be. The major complaint I hear is about terrain, but that could be addressed in a Chapter Approved or something.

When it comes to the Codexes, yes, I'd want them to come out faster than slower since more factions getting up to date with the latest rules is good; get people playing with their models and motivated to buy. From there, GW tends to start handing out the edition-gimmick one at a time, which can be infuriating to someone who has to wait 3 years to get their codex at long last, only for the edition to suddenly change and start the system all over again.

In order for the books, the cards, and other things that we purchase to RETAIN SOME VALUE (wild concept I know), they need to STICK AROUND for a little while. Otherwise, stop selling us 60 dollar hardbacks and go back to 30 dollar softbacks that we can tear apart or put into 3-ring binders without feeling too bad about it.

Once Codexes are updated within the life of an edition, ideally then THAT is where GW would start introducing the edition-gimmick. So, for example, the Codexes should launch with Crusade rules, but superfaction rules (space marine doctrines, for example) could be held for a campaign/tournament book, along with 5 other factions worth of edition-gimmicks, that would release across 4 relatively inexpensive campaign/tournament books that are OPTIONAL.

Want to play with the Tyranid codex you bought an the cards you bought and nothing more? It becomes much easier to do that. "Hey, let's just play a 'base' game, without all that extra stuff." Cool, you and your opponent have one less book to worry about. This *could* also make it easier to balance, with changes targeted at those campaign books rather than the codexes.

So the ideal situation would be this in a 6-year edition cycle:
Year 1: core rules updated, half the codexes brought up to speed
Year 2: other half of codexes updated, first large tournament pack revealed
Year 3: tournament pack full release, factions that get new models get new codexes
Year 4: large balance tweaks and addressing core rules that may need to be updated, along with factions that get new models get new codexes
Year 5: new large tournament pack released, new edition-gimmick out into the wild, factions that get new models get new codexes
Year 6: factions that get big updates get new codexes, end-of-edition wind-down campaign with new gimmicks, modes of play
Year 7: new cycle new core rules

The major downside that people might notice to this system is that some factions that get new models will likely get 2 codexes within the course of an edition... but if editions are cycling every 3 years, then in the same span of time you're going to get that anyway, whether you get new models or not. Imagine Dark Eldar, that haven't gotten any new models in 6 years, and yet have bought 2 books regardless. Oof, I say.

Anyway, that's my rant and what I'd try to push as a solution, but my solution focuses on selling *less* product, not more, so it'd never be adopted.

We're basically on year 6 of these core rules. The updates for 9th were pretty minor. The biggest changes came with codexes and tournament packs.

GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement. This makes it pretty unlikely for them to want to release codexes in batches.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement.

^This mentality . . .

I would love to have some data that showed this weas necessary for a hobby like 40k. Growing your youtube channel, sure, but model purchases?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement.

^This mentality . . .

I would love to have some data that showed this weas necessary for a hobby like 40k. Growing your youtube channel, sure, but model purchases?

It isn't even true, given that the 'release every week' is across all systems, not just 40k (and there are occasional two week preorders, but I can understand discounting those). And even when it is 40k, the releases are faction based, so people still go years at a time without 'new releases' to be engaged with.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW's problem is they need a release every single week to drive engagement.

^This mentality . . .

I would love to have some data that showed this weas necessary for a hobby like 40k. Growing your youtube channel, sure, but model purchases?

To maintain their current level of sales, yea.

Every release is an opportunity to reach people and convince them to buy something. If you group releases monthly then people start to feel like nothing is happening and their hobby dollars go elsewhere. There might also be multiple things they would buy, but they only reserved so much money and wind up buying one thing when they might otherwise have bought more if the releases were more spread out.

It's a horrible gakky reality of the consumer world we live in.

drbored wrote:
Imagine Dark Eldar, that haven't gotten any new models in 6 years, and yet have bought 2 books regardless. Oof, I say.

It would help if this wasn't inaccurate - since the launch of 8th, they've received 3 new models that I can think of off the top of my head.

What they haven't received is new units, or at least not new units with models attached to them.

I understand the argument, but I want to see the data. I'm always suspicious of sales people who will use their sales skills to constantly sell you on the importance of sales people.

Plus I'm interested in any hard data surrounding consumer attention spans in general.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The problem is that a few competitive players have an absurd impact on the game, and unless those guys are fair and play your army...well, you are screwed.

Has the forum created Schrödinger's Tournament Player?

Bother a meta hopper and devoted to one army depending on if we're talking about balance or selling models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Hell, a 170pt suicide melta squad of Sternguard in a drop pod have 3 combi meltas and 2 multi-meltas, Turn 2 you drop in and at 12' range you are pumping out 12-13dmg with ease against a T7 3+ target.

I think people are still missing free reserves and, I believe, every army has some sort of tool to interact with incoming units ( though no idea on WE yet ). Guard don't have a shooting strat, but can basically force something not to come in once. There's enough stuff that pushes to 12" that it becomes a potential liability to rely on being in 12".

Anything like that squad popping in on me is going to be met with AP2 bolters that don't have to worry about AoC any more.

Anyway, yes, free upgrades can be silly, but I am more interested in the outcome than the concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.

Your last sentence contradicts the rest. I am unsure if you intended to write it that way?

Mathhammer models what the weapons do. It doesn't model what happens on the table or what you face.

With no points your choice is now 'how can I beat my opponents' rather than 'how can I fit enough stuff to be effective'.

Pretty sure how you "beat your opponent" will just boil down to fitting in more "effective stuff", since it's now free/cheaper. There's arguments to be had over what stuff will be "effective", but in the end, marines will die faster (no AoC), and so will their opponents (because suddenly the marines will have more guns). So, more lethality! Which is exactly what 9th edition needs! /s

This "concept" was already tested in 7th edition. I think we know what happens already.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The weapon that is more effective for your battle plan and opponent pool is more points efficient. Paying 40 points for multi-meltas if you're staying so far back with your Devastators they cannot shoot turn 1/2 would be inefficient and taking heavy bolters on your drop pod Devastators you need to clear out monsters would be inefficient. Mathhammer is meant to model this.

Your last sentence contradicts the rest. I am unsure if you intended to write it that way?

Mathhammer models what the weapons do. It doesn't model what happens on the table or what you face.

With no points your choice is now 'how can I beat my opponents' rather than 'how can I fit enough stuff to be effective'.

I don't see the contradiction.

Mathhamer is math that helps you win 40k games. If mathhammer says that plasma cannons are bad against Knights and you for that reason you choose not to use plasma cannons but you don't play in an environment where you might face Knights then you have done mathhammer wrong. Mathhammer cannot predict the future, but knowing the chance of passing psychic tests is useful when making risk assessments and planning your turn.

If missile launcher Devastators are C tier compared to grav Devastators being D tier into your meta filled with Daemons you'll probably skip both and take the A tier Assault Centurions. Missile launchers need to have a cost that makes them a good choice into some targets, they might already have that, but I doubt they're actually ever the right choice.

drbored wrote:
The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it, is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.

GW don't do this. Where are my Annihilation Barge and Doomstalker buffs and why did Tomb Blades get buffed? No lists, no lists, all the lists.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Pretty sure how you "beat your opponent" will just boil down to fitting in more "effective stuff", since it's now free/cheaper. There's arguments to be had over what stuff will be "effective", but in the end, marines will die faster (no AoC), and so will their opponents (because suddenly the marines will have more guns). So, more lethality! Which is exactly what 9th edition needs! /s

This "concept" was already tested in 7th edition. I think we know what happens already.

The game isn't centered around killing. I would agree with you if it were 8th edition.

If efficiency were the only metric then melta WOULD be the absolute answer to the game, but it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
If missile launcher Devastators are C tier compared to grav Devastators being D tier into your meta filled with Daemons you'll probably skip both and take the A tier Assault Centurions. Missile launchers need to have a cost that makes them a good choice into some targets, they might already have that, but I doubt they're actually ever the right choice.

The idea that the meta is filled with enough of one entity is also an 8th edition thing.

Back when Loyal 32 and Castellans were a thing you best have brought lascannons/MM and no heavy bolters.

During this past season if you want to 5-0 there is a significant change you'll face Tyranids, Harlies, BA, Votann, Daemons, and CSM at the very least. When is the last time you heard about some skew list winning a tournament? Even knights trend into baby knights, because you just can't win with four models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Pretty sure how you "beat your opponent" will just boil down to fitting in more "effective stuff", since it's now free/cheaper. There's arguments to be had over what stuff will be "effective", but in the end, marines will die faster (no AoC), and so will their opponents (because suddenly the marines will have more guns). So, more lethality! Which is exactly what 9th edition needs! /s

This "concept" was already tested in 7th edition. I think we know what happens already.

The game isn't centered around killing. I would agree with you if it were 8th edition.

If efficiency were the only metric then melta WOULD be the absolute answer to the game, but it isn't.

Of course it is.

Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.

This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.

drbored wrote:
The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it, is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.

Yeah...that just isn't true. Sorry for being ork centric...but its literally the only army I play. Ork boyz appeared as bare minimum troops choices (10 models per army) for more than half this edition. It took a year or so before GW dropped them 1ppm. Now they appear...umm...still 1 or NONE per army. In fact, I just checked blood Of Kittens. A grand total of 2 units of boyz have appeared in the last 7 Ork GT wins. Painboss I don't think has ever appeared, regular beastboss same, KFF big mek isn't seen anymore, Snikrot, Badrukk, Buzzgob, Mozrog, Wurrboy, Zodgrod, Mad Dok, Mek, Banner Nob, Painboy, Gunwagon has not been seen in awhile, Flashgitz, Hunta Rig, Kannon Wagon, Lootas are still nowhere to be found, Blitza/burna bommer. Some of these just received a buff finally, others got tiny insignificant buffs that didn't change anything (Lootas going down a few points but still being garbage tier).

GW doesn't really adjust things much, and definitely not enough on units that desperately need help. Hell, the Stompa hasn't been seen in so long that I think we might need to send the police to do a welfare check on him.

SemperMortis wrote:

drbored wrote:
The one thing we do know that GW does, because they have discussed it in their meta watch articles and people on the ground have noticed it, is that if they see a unit that is in zero lists, they'll give it a buff. If they see a unit that is in EVERY list, they'll target it for a nerf.

Yeah...that just isn't true. Sorry for being ork centric...but its literally the only army I play. Ork boyz appeared as bare minimum troops choices (10 models per army) for more than half this edition. It took a year or so before GW dropped them 1ppm. Now they appear...umm...still 1 or NONE per army. In fact, I just checked blood Of Kittens. A grand total of 2 units of boyz have appeared in the last 7 Ork GT wins. Painboss I don't think has ever appeared, regular beastboss same, KFF big mek isn't seen anymore, Snikrot, Badrukk, Buzzgob, Mozrog, Wurrboy, Zodgrod, Mad Dok, Mek, Banner Nob, Painboy, Gunwagon has not been seen in awhile, Flashgitz, Hunta Rig, Kannon Wagon, Lootas are still nowhere to be found, Blitza/burna bommer. Some of these just received a buff finally, others got tiny insignificant buffs that didn't change anything (Lootas going down a few points but still being garbage tier).

GW doesn't really adjust things much, and definitely not enough on units that desperately need help. Hell, the Stompa hasn't been seen in so long that I think we might need to send the police to do a welfare check on him.

Oh that's not true, you spend at least as much time being anti-marine as you do being pro-ork.

As for your point about the Orks not getting buffed/nerfed - Its already been hypothesized that they don't play Orks and don't notice them - suggesting an exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule per se. I'd add a different exception to the rule that may also contribute to Orks being ignored - armies/units that are being played the way they envision them don't get buffed/nerfed either - and I think past performance bears this out. They didn't nerf Guilliman, they nerfed soup/vehicles. The constant CORE Keyword Hokey Pokey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.

This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.

That first point isn't necessarily true anymore. But the last one is probably truer than you intended.

Now that SM Troops can sticky objectives, I foresee a paradigm where SM have a couple of their fastest/toughest/both troops units running around capping objectives while the rest of the army obliterates the opponent so they can't un-sticky them. And for as much as we bash GW for not knowing what they're doing they either thought about or fell backwards into this one - its only troop units. That means Eliminators using the Carbine trick don't work, that means Reivers, Assault Squads, Inceptors etc. don't work. It even means Teleporting Deathwing Terminators or Ravenwing Bikes that get ObSec but are not troops don't get this. - and truth be told that's maybe/probably a mistake. If someone's running all DW or RW or combined RW/DW with no Green Wing, those specialist Dets should probably confer "Troops" onto the FOC that qualify as ObSec. But it is probably also be a little OP for 12-14" movers to be sticky capping objectives in the deep field.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Of course it is.

Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.

This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.

And forward units aren't guarding the backfield, holding/stickying objectives, or doing actions.

If I see blocks of Sang Guard / Inceptors coming at me I'm putting terminators on the table and the rest into reserves. Scarabs can tank 5 Inceptors and lose a model, no problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Of course it is.

Dead units can't hold objectives or do actions, after all. Pure killing power like massed multi-meltas might not be the most "effective", because getting your guns into position also matters. But that just changes what's "effective". High mobility + good lethality might be more effective, but it's still because it's more lethal, because it brings your guns to bear where you need them faster.

This change makes the game more lethal. End of story.

And forward units aren't guarding the backfield, holding/stickying objectives, or doing actions.

If I see blocks of Sang Guard / Inceptors coming at me I'm putting terminators on the table and the rest into reserves. Scarabs can tank 5 Inceptors and lose a model, no problem.

Oh, you can take troops for that......who now get free long range guns (lascannons, etc). So, more lethality! Marines are less durable (no AoC), but bring more firepower (cheaper bodies with more and BETTER guns). Lethality goes up.

And you're not even arguing against that by pointing out that you'll just put your toughest units on the board and hide everything else in reserves, your acknowledging it.

Look, I'm just pointing out what these changes will do, I don't actually care. I've been done with 9th edition 40k for months now. I found a game that I enjoy WAY more. If this gets everyone's "win rates" to 50%, and that's good enough for you? Have fun!

10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

First 10th Ed "Balance" Dataslate:
"We've made a few changes to tails, as we felt that heads was falling behind in some cases."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
10th edition:
"Flip a coin, call it in the air, victory for the winner"

Meta watch hype article:
"Not only did we reach in between our 45%-55% winrate target, but our 10th edition playtest team managed to achieve exactly a 50% winrate over 1000 games! We expect everyone in the new edition to have as much fun as we did testing it!"

Completely unrealistic. Each player will flip any number of Citadel™ FineCoins™ which can be purchased for $99.99 each and whoever wins the most flips wins the game. Any deviation from the 50% win rate will be explained by players not understanding the format and it will be shown with FineStatistics™ that only the top 5% of competitive players should be counted in the data set.