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.

In a perfectly unbalanced game you'd get a higher win rate from adjusting your army, replacing your Predators with Devastators not because Devastators don't pay for lascannons so there's a huge mathematical discrepancy that makes Predators a non-option, but because your meta has more anti-Predator units than anti-Devastator units. There will be a natural arms race as players update their armies and get new ones.

 MinscS2 wrote:

HF_Scorpion wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:

HF_Scorpion wrote:
What I find odd about the double bonesword ruling is that they kept the points unchanged for the bonesword+lash whip combo. The difference in the effective hit rate between the two configurations is 1/3 of an attack.

Effectively, they decided that 1/3 of an attack is worth 10 points per model. I am not sure if this makes sense.

That's not quite right, the bonesword/whip did go up. It's now 5 points.

While I don't like the dual swords at 10 points, 5 points for the sword/whip seems a bit more reasonable. I'm leaning towards that over rending claws personally. As while the claws are cheaper, I don't mind paying 5ppm to get 2 damage weapons.

I do not think it went up. The base warrior at 30 points comes with bonesword/lashwhip and devourer, and it's 30 points. If you want to exchange the devourer for a laswhip/bonesword combo, that's +5 points. But I am fairly sure the base warrior stays the same.

Thats not how it works.

The Warriors is 30 points, and while it does come with a bonesword/lashwhip by default, it still has to pay 5 points for that bonesword if you opt to keep it, for a total of 35 points.

It's the same for everyone where wargear costs, another example; A Leman Russ is 150 pts comes with a Turret Weapon and a Heavy Bolter by default, but you still have to pay 5 point for the Heavy Bolter for a total of 155 pts.

Well, that's a bit of a kick in the cippliones. I guess back to the drawing board.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Yes but your casual player who just picks what they like will be turned off very quickly if they get tabled endlessly because of playing what they like.

Tournament players are not the only market they stand to lose due to imbalance; to claim that is to ignore the games history. The game was in a horrible place in 7th edition from a financial standpoint and that is a direct result of how bad the game was. Tournament players and pure painters are both minorities, the majority of players fall somewhere in between and they are going to be turned off to buying products if they feel like the game has no balance.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm pro balance and with you and your arguments.

tneva82 wrote:
If game is balanced new armies etc require zero changes on existing armies as you can simply figure way to win with your existlng army and your wr depends on your skill. And new purchases have zero impact how much you win.

The moment you say you need to buy new models to respond new armies/mission packs you know game isn't in balance. And indeed that imbalance is driving sales then.

If a new balance adjustment changes internal balance in your codex, it affects your army. If you buy the new campaign book and it has rules for boarding actions, you might buy new stuff to play it, since your balanced vehicular army isn't usable. Or you might need to buy new stuff anyways, because your army isn't optimal for the new mission pack in it. If a new army shows up and is a significant meta threat in a different way from other armies (while still balanced against them), you might need new stuff to counter it. If a new edition comes out and has new rules, it might change how your army plays, or compromise internal or external balance. If a game-wide rules change comes out, it affects you too. If a new codex for your army comes out, all bets are off.

A game with constant new releases and rules updates and tournament packs is going to be in a constant state of meta flux, even if the designers are doing their very best to balance it as they go rather than deliberately sabotaging the game. Either way you can play with your existing army and try to make the best of it, but if you want to chase the meta you're going to be buying product.

 vict0988 wrote:
In a perfectly unbalanced game you'd get a higher win rate from adjusting your army, replacing your Predators with Devastators not because Devastators don't pay for lascannons so there's a huge mathematical discrepancy that makes Predators a non-option, but because your meta has more anti-Predator units than anti-Devastator units. There will be a natural arms race as players update their armies and get new ones.

The problem with marines is, that all the things that are used to kill a potential predator, will also kill a 5 man devastator squad. So the cost of a predator vs what it can do matters a lot. Plus you can't stick a predator in to a drop pod. But a devastator squad with meltas has that option, and then it actualy gets to do something in game, then a predator that either hides and does nothing, or gets blown up if the opposing army has it in range.

If a game-wide rules change comes out, it affects you too.

That is odd, because for GK, it is take NDKs, take interceptors and take power armoured units, never terminator armoured units for 2 editions now. And there were multiple rules changes, updates. And even if something different was valid for a second, GW always kills it in the next patch, clearly showing the GK players that making something else useful was just an error and not something they actualy planned to do.

Karol wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
In a perfectly unbalanced game you'd get a higher win rate from adjusting your army, replacing your Predators with Devastators not because Devastators don't pay for lascannons so there's a huge mathematical discrepancy that makes Predators a non-option, but because your meta has more anti-Predator units than anti-Devastator units. There will be a natural arms race as players update their armies and get new ones.

The problem with marines is, that all the things that are used to kill a potential predator, will also kill a 5 man devastator squad. So the cost of a predator vs what it can do matters a lot. Plus you can't stick a predator in to a drop pod. But a devastator squad with meltas has that option, and then it actualy gets to do something in game, then a predator that either hides and does nothing, or gets blown up if the opposing army has it in range.

A wound can only deal 2 damage to a Devastator but it can deal up to 12 to a Predator, so there are thing that are better for killing Devastators and things that are better for killing Predators. S7+ is also important versus Predators. Against a lot of lascannons Devastators should be better, against a lot of grav cannons Predators should be better. But GW doesn't bother to do this sort of calculation, meaning there are tonnes of units which are auto-includes or never includes because the math is off. The only way to fix this is with math and points. But GW is caught up in broad trends and faction abilities which have effects that are impossible to predict without playtesting.

Karol wrote:
The problem with marines is, that all the things that are used to kill a potential predator, will also kill a 5 man devastator squad. So the cost of a predator vs what it can do matters a lot. Plus you can't stick a predator in to a drop pod. But a devastator squad with meltas has that option, and then it actualy gets to do something in game, then a predator that either hides and does nothing, or gets blown up if the opposing army has it in range.

Steps how to balance this out:
- Make units pay the same amount of points for equipment based on their BS/WS as a baseline and tune it from there if needed. (Having a unified way to calculate unit point costs depending on their stats is a must as well)
- Adjust the defensive profile for the Predator to a point where anything but the high mid to high end anti tank weapons are ineffective.
- Adjust the offensive profile of weapons like a missile launcher (which I don't consider high end anti tank in this example) so it is effective against T4 3+ 2 wounds.
- The cost difference as well as the cost efficiency against their ideal targets between a high end anti-tank weapon like a lascannon and a high end anti-infantry weapon like a missile launcher must be big enough so spamming one and using it against a "bad matchup" is ineffective to non-viable in a tournament level environment.
- Voila, you have two weapons with two distinct targets that you want to use them against. Rinse and repeat with other weapons. Those that perform better against their designed target cost more, those that perform worse cost less. GWs "you can take a heavy bolter for 10 or a lascannon for 15" and now "you can take everything for free and there ARE clearly best in slot selections, have fun" is just not enough of a difference.

Tbh I don't think they are capable of doing better without a hard reset, as all the changes needed to turn the boat around are too big for a "mid edition" kind of update.

I think a solution to balance the predator and devastators in our example would reach beyond "kill or be killed" into game mechanics changes. Infantry aren't useful in real life simply because anti-tank weapons are slightly inefficient against them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a solution to balance the predator and devastators in our example would reach beyond "kill or be killed" into game mechanics changes. Infantry aren't useful in real life simply because anti-tank weapons are slightly inefficient against them.

Agree. And everytime I've set about to design my own rules, I'm always looking for ways to better differentiate the two.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a solution to balance the predator and devastators in our example would reach beyond "kill or be killed" into game mechanics changes. Infantry aren't useful in real life simply because anti-tank weapons are slightly inefficient against them.

They can also magically move through solid walls!
---

Really, I think the most straightforward solution is to actually utilize the fething keyword system they introduced and under-utilized. As vehicles have the tank keyword, so weapons need a corresponding 'anti-tank' keyword to be fully effective.

This can be combined with reintroducing fundamental things like suppression, pinning and actual morale rather than 'randomly some extra models just get lost in the warp'

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think a solution to balance the predator and devastators in our example would reach beyond "kill or be killed" into game mechanics changes. Infantry aren't useful in real life simply because anti-tank weapons are slightly inefficient against them.

I'd think a lot of advantages of infantry in real life go out the window if you have them marching up against the enemy (who does the same...) because your armoury gave all your squad leaders a CS:GO knife with a cool skin on it. (= a fancy melee weapon)

9th edition isn't as deep as older edition and could use some depth. But people don't expect a hardcore simulation either. 40k is a fantasy spectacle battlefield in space. The "drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" meme isnt too far off from gaming table reality.

The goal is to make the game more balanced and interesting without making it feel out of place from what people expect from 40k.

I remember when they listed the Black Templars pyre blaster as D2 and people just lost their minds.