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.

I'm popping in to eat my crow. I thought that Sisters had the tools to overcome their limitations and it's very clear that they don't. I'm still a little curious to see if they work in any kind of Imperial allies lists as the cheap objective holders but I suspect that if such a list was good we'd be seeing it make waves by now.

The Repressor is so wildly superior to anything else in the index it's kind of infuriating to be honest.

Any big tournaments doing legends anyone know about?

Here's something to ponder. According to 40K Stats:

Adepta Sororitas 10th Ed Win Rate: 48.04% over 1403 Games

Adepta Sororitas Leviathan GT Win Rate: 43.56% over 225 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus 10th Ed Win Rate: 33.37% over 833 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus Leviathan GT Win Rate: 47.95% over 146 Games

What the heck is going on here? AS win rate drops in GT format while AM increased by nearly 50%

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Pretty easy to solve melta. Just say it gets anti vehicle 4 plus within melta range.

But this is the issue. You can’t make a change like that without doing it to everybody because the melta is a common weapon.

Technically they can do exactly that as weapons are datasheet based.

They can, but they shouldn't. It doesn't really fix the issue - which is that so many units were "built" with melta as a/the tank killer option for the unit and/or the entire army - and fixing it just for sisters will be both a tacit admission they screwed up, and a giant middle finger to everyone they don't fix it for. We only have to back track to the posts from the origins/precursors of the "Melta" rule and Firedragons not getting that boost to see a preview of those results. The players are as unlikely to care about the difference between a Sisters of Battle Holy Melta vs a Space Marine Multi Melta as they were about the difference between a Meltagun and a Firepike or fusion gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's something to ponder. According to 40K Stats:

Adepta Sororitas 10th Ed Win Rate: 48.04% over 1403 Games

Adepta Sororitas Leviathan GT Win Rate: 43.56% over 225 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus 10th Ed Win Rate: 33.37% over 833 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus Leviathan GT Win Rate: 47.95% over 146 Games

What the heck is going on here? AS win rate drops in GT format while AM increased by nearly 50%

Experience in build/play styles and vs. Target Priority?

 alextroy wrote:
Here's something to ponder. According to 40K Stats:

Adepta Sororitas 10th Ed Win Rate: 48.04% over 1403 Games

Adepta Sororitas Leviathan GT Win Rate: 43.56% over 225 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus 10th Ed Win Rate: 33.37% over 833 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus Leviathan GT Win Rate: 47.95% over 146 Games

What the heck is going on here? AS win rate drops in GT format while AM increased by nearly 50%

Player skill? It might be a difference of who was playing where & who/what they played against. And how.
Just because you're using x faction does NOT guarantee you x% chance of winning.....

 alextroy wrote:
Here's something to ponder. According to 40K Stats:

Adepta Sororitas 10th Ed Win Rate: 48.04% over 1403 Games

Adepta Sororitas Leviathan GT Win Rate: 43.56% over 225 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus 10th Ed Win Rate: 33.37% over 833 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus Leviathan GT Win Rate: 47.95% over 146 Games

What the heck is going on here? AS win rate drops in GT format while AM increased by nearly 50%

Ugh. See I am worried they didn’t mention Sisters in the metawatch video.

I’d question where that win rates coming from when you can get 10 Black Templars for near enough 10 Sisters of Battle. Objectively a balanced or fluffy army should lose against a fluffy marine army. Not sure how you’re an MSU army if you aren’t even half the points of a marine squad. People are probably taking the most tailored list they can and exploiting the way objectives are generated and the terrain.

So I can see them staying the course and thinking the “MSU”, you might win the game by hiding in the terrain stops the opponent attacking you and you get tabled. I don’t really count that as a win TBH. I am old fashioned, you start balance with two armies in an open field. You shouldn’t make assumptions about terrain and the objectives.

Saying, “oh well in a game of 40K it should be so packed with LOS blocking terrain that all those long range guns can’t shoot most of the time” or “we’ll count your game as a win even if you get tabled, you get cards that give you points for doing nothing and your opponent doesn’t lose any models”. Like I don’t really care too much what the cards say, if you have a bad game then it’s a bad game even if I am moving stuff around in my back line and deep striking or redeploying stuff arbitrarily your opponent can’t always counter. I can see them using that as an excuse not to look lethality or durability or relative points costs.

Plus they might all just be spamming Exorcists and arco flaggelants.

Depends how they classify armies.

Right now I’d think the best way to play SB is to go all in on the allies. I don’t know GT rules but I’d guess there are a lot of SB “armies” that don’t actually have much SB in them.

Can you even do allies, outside Agents of the Imperium?

You can take a specific number of Agents of the Imperium characters & units along with 1 Imperial Knight unit.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Can you even do allies, outside Agents of the Imperium?

They can do one big knight or a couple small ones I think. A discount Aeldari thing. Sort of.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's something to ponder. According to 40K Stats:

Adepta Sororitas 10th Ed Win Rate: 48.04% over 1403 Games

Adepta Sororitas Leviathan GT Win Rate: 43.56% over 225 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus 10th Ed Win Rate: 33.37% over 833 Games

Adeptus Mechanicus Leviathan GT Win Rate: 47.95% over 146 Games

What the heck is going on here? AS win rate drops in GT format while AM increased by nearly 50%

Admech have some okay units in the dex, the Kataphrons mainly.

Ad Mecha to work need an expert pilot playing them and a very specific build to be used. In case of SoB the level of player has less impact on win rates.

It shows in some of the good armies too. GSC win rates for tournaments, and over all are not the same. With a much bigger spread then lets say with eldar.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Can you even do allies, outside Agents of the Imperium?

Isn't it slightly different to 9th edition where you can take any Imperium/Chaos unit but you lose all detachment abilities?

Jarms48 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Can you even do allies, outside Agents of the Imperium?

Isn't it slightly different to 9th edition where you can take any Imperium/Chaos unit but you lose all detachment abilities?

Usually what happens is you keep your Detachment abilities, but most detachment abilites only work on your main faction through faction/keyword limitations - so allies can't be targeted by Detachment Strats, just the BRB ones. There are also generally some pretty tight points/unit count restrictions. I can't find/remember which free PDF had the rules for a knight allied contingent - but I seem to remember that one being points based (up to 500 Points so 1 big, or two small) vs Unit Count like for Imperial Agents (2 and 2) Oop - there it is Freeblades in the Knight PDF 1 Titanic, or 3 Armigers

Big knights without rotating ion shields and even more their Knight Code. Armigers could be good, if they were -2AP.

Three Warglaives with Thermal Spears makes up for a lot of Sisters Anti-Tank issues.

Well, hides the issues. Armigers aren't sisters so it's not really a fix.

In my expiriance 3 of the smaller knights in to anything which is basic army now, just dies. GSC have numbers and fire power to kill big knights, and the only saving grace of the faction is that it is both expensive and few people owned it, at least in places where people don't look for leaked rules.

Eldar just blow up everything. Custodes can actualy melee kill the small knights. On top of that, because people don't like towering, terrain becomes very hard on non LoS ignoring or super fast stuff. SoB are just too expensive, too slow, with not efficient enough melee and with core mechanics designed for a horde army. If SoB had the GSC numbers and super powerful melee units of some sort, then they would work.

The real problems are going to start, in 1-2 months, when even the sunday gamers are going to catch up to people playing 10+ games a week. Then no army that is mid or bad is going to work. But well at least we have the first army, at least to my knowladge, that burst the 90% win rate.

Karol wrote:
In my expiriance 3 of the smaller knights in to anything which is basic army now, just dies. GSC have numbers and fire power to kill big knights, and the only saving grace of the faction is that it is both expensive and few people owned it, at least in places where people don't look for leaked rules.

Eldar just blow up everything. Custodes can actualy melee kill the small knights. On top of that, because people don't like towering, terrain becomes very hard on non LoS ignoring or super fast stuff. SoB are just too expensive, too slow, with not efficient enough melee and with core mechanics designed for a horde army. If SoB had the GSC numbers and super powerful melee units of some sort, then they would work.

The real problems are going to start, in 1-2 months, when even the sunday gamers are going to catch up to people playing 10+ games a week. Then no army that is mid or bad is going to work. But well at least we have the first army, at least to my knowladge, that burst the 90% win rate.

Last top 5 GT list for Sisters was 3 armigers.

Interestingly, people are still trying to make garbage units like Sacresants and Dominions work. Once people accept that it's Exorcist+Seraphim.Index, I think the winrate will level out to about 40% and sit there until the next rebalance.

Not so sure about that in non-tourney games. We've got repressors datacards now, wo anyone who kept their Repressor spam is going to be able to get doms punching above their weight again.

PenitentJake wrote:
Not so sure about that in non-tourney games. We've got repressors datacards now, wo anyone who kept their Repressor spam is going to be able to get doms punching above their weight again.

Nothing that happens in non-tourney games matters in relation to unit balance.

Try to go tell that to 4 dudes that just started and 2 have 40-50% win rate lists, one has a sub 40% win rates list and the 4th plays a curb stomper like knights or custodes.
Balance internal and external is essential especialy at the non tournament level. At the tournament level the problem of 27% win rate Votan isn't a problem, because if you remove fresh players from the rankings there is exacly 0 people playing them in tournaments. The same with too good armies. 90% win rate of veteran players with GSC or +70% of eldar, what problem is that for people that are trying to win events? It is a non problem.
Problem at event level are local FAQs, what ever you can get models painted on time and the ones you want etc.

The main problem for most custodes or IK players right now, isn't what ever they are good or bad, but what ever they can get their hands on 10 arbitors.

ERJAK wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Not so sure about that in non-tourney games. We've got repressors datacards now, wo anyone who kept their Repressor spam is going to be able to get doms punching above their weight again.

Nothing that happens in non-tourney games matters in relation to unit balance.

A bold statement considering that less than 10% of the playerbase compete in tournaments. Many countries where GW products are sold don't even have official tournaments.

Maybe: "Nothing that happens in non-tourney games matters in relation to balance for (Dakkanauts, tourney players, the internet, you personally, etc)" would have been an easier argument to support.

Of course, it's fair to point out that being an OOP FW unit probably DOES mean that only the tourney-minded will have access to it, and you are certainly correct that this won't make a difference to that subset of the player base, so I suppose there is some validity to your point.

ERJAK wrote:
Nothing that happens in non-tourney games matters in relation to unit balance.

Strongly disagree, but GW does not have the means in place to get any other data.

They don't need much data. If new GSC players are draggint the veteran players win rates of +90% to a measly +70%, then one expect that the unprepared FLGS games enjoyer will not have much fun playing against the army, piloted by a good or new player. On the flip side 27% win rates of Votan, and 0% non new GT players tell GW, that absolutly no one in the tournament circle thought that Votan are worth bringing to an event. And I would like to point out that GWs own last big tournament had a dude that brough minimum GK and a thunder hawk to the event. Votan don't even the "for fun" players, because right now they are not fun.

If ad mecha win rates and participation are in the dumps, and the only wins come from veteran players playing a list that looks like a clone of other winning lists, then how much fun will a non tournament, non optimised list, non veteran player have?

GW doesn't need to have all the casual data in the world, or even any casual data, to have an idea what the impact of outliers is. Now they may struggle to find out how it is for the around 50% win rate, because here the difference between and old marine army with tacticals and a triple desolotor squad can be huge.
But GW knows the sales, they know how the tournament lists look like and they know much many units of stuff they produced and sold. If the tournament lists can only be run, by lets say 1000 people world wide and everyone else would have to play the left overs. Then the casual player may not have the access to some of those obligatory things, needed to run certain armies. Custodes or knights without an assains and arbitors are an army that can lose turn one, if they push fails.

Playing marines and being unable to buy desolators, may not be very fun in to good armies and people that could get their stuff.

As I said some place else, Jimmy with his christmas box of custodes is going to wreck face in his casual circle of "just stared w40k and 10th" guys.

a_typical_hero wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Nothing that happens in non-tourney games matters in relation to unit balance.

Strongly disagree, but GW does not have the means in place to get any other data.

It seems like you do agree then - GW can't/don't collect non-tourney data (besides whatever passes for their in-house playtesting (HA!)), so those games don't matter when it comes to whatever GW does concerning unit balance.

If you want to balance your game properly, you need more data than just faction attendance for events and victorious army lists.

Just as an example, there is currently no way for GW to track the "MMR" (for the lack of a better word) of any given player. The publicly available information of tournament factions and placements is tiny compared to all the unreported games being played everyday.

GW can make adjustments on what gets reported or complained about, but that is just a matter of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". If nobody ever plays LoV and we have no data on any of their units in a balls to the walls competitive environment, where both players know what they are doing, how well designed can a possible buff be? Especially given GW's track record showing their lack of understanding how their own game is being played by competitive players.

I think this is one of the reasons why the balance pendulum swings constantly and why it swings hard at times. Lack of data to base a decision on.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Nothing that happens in non-tourney games matters in relation to unit balance.

Strongly disagree, but GW does not have the means in place to get any other data.

It seems like you do agree then - GW can't/don't collect non-tourney data (besides whatever passes for their in-house playtesting (HA!)), so those games don't matter when it comes to whatever GW does concerning unit balance.

No, casual data is important and should be collected. I merely acknowledge that GW currently does not possess the ability to do so.

a_typical_hero wrote:
No, casual data is important and should be collected. I merely acknowledge that GW currently does not possess the ability to do so.

Is there an intelligent way to do this?

Not asking you to design the whole system, just have a conceptual model of how this could be done that prevents:
1) malicious data manipulation
2) unintelligible results that require large amounts of work to parse (e.g. text input feedback fields).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
No, casual data is important and should be collected. I merely acknowledge that GW currently does not possess the ability to do so.

Is there an intelligent way to do this?

Not asking you to design the whole system, just have a conceptual model of how this could be done that prevents:
1) malicious data manipulation
2) unintelligible results that require large amounts of work to parse (e.g. text input feedback fields).

It's not infallible, but you could integrate score-keeping and game tracking functionality similar to the ITC Battles app into the official 40K app.

Useful for getting a larger picture of army balance as well as secondaries and rates of CP expenditure. If it's linked into the army builder, you can dig a little deeper to see stuff like Eldar win rates with and without a Wraithknight.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is there an intelligent way to do this?

Not asking you to design the whole system, just have a conceptual model of how this could be done that prevents:
1) malicious data manipulation
2) unintelligible results that require large amounts of work to parse (e.g. text input feedback fields).

Let's start with number 2) first, as I think this is easier or more straight forward to do:
- Make a proper list building app and website, so you have exact unit configuration saved while providing an incentive for the user to do it.
- The app could assist during the game so you can keep track of the overall score and all secondaries.
- Submit the result at the end of the game to a server for parsing.
- The app could assign a "MMR" to you which gets higher if you win against other people of the same or higher MMR than you and gets lower if you lose, or stays the same if you continuously play against the same people.

1) is harder to get right, as there is simply no way of preventing any malicious use while keeping it accessable enough. You could, however, do something like this:
- After you submit your battle data, generate a (QR) code for the other player to enter, so the result gets confirmed and the armies get paired.
- Introduce different kind of "trust levels" by which you can filter the results. Something like "Garagehammer (only confirmed by participating players)", "Bunker alliance" for games taking place in affiliated clubs and stores and finally "Tournament and Warhammer shops confirmed". So for Bunker and Tournament you need something like a third party confirmation that the game did indeed happen like this.

Those are good ideas actually, appreciate the insights.

Not flawless ofc, but conceptually sound as far as I am willing to analyze them.