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.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's meant to be less trivial to work around points changes by design? The point is and was that when a balance pass takes place, you generally need a new list. It was as true at any point in the games history as it is now, that's not related to the relative complexity of doing so.

Your justification for being aggressive is "someone doesn't think the exact same as me", which really isn't justifiable.

Okay, you win. Your nonsensical, contorted logic has bested me. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

You're welcome, gak in gak out and all that.

I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

I am sad they didn't seize the chance tbh, this was the moment to regain a little trust and confidence.

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?

 LunarSol wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?

2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's not like people didn't warn about this happening.

Who could have foreseen this?!

 bullyboy wrote:
So my 1000pt Eldar list went up 25pts due to the Fire Prism change. Ok, so I drop my Rangers.
What do I do with the extra 30pts? Maybe add an enhancement I didn’t really want, or start from scratch?
That’s the issue, there are no small adjustments anymore.

Again, I'm in complete agreement with you.
At the VERY least it would be nice to be able to add extra models to units WITHOUT having to go to the max unit size.
But also giving some units an actual cost for their most useful piece of wargear would be great too.

Paying extra 1 piece of wargear on the occasional unit would not make the game much more complex for new players and would easily give list-building options to add or remove a few things without having to drop whole units and still have a deficit in your points.

-

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's not like people didn't warn about this happening.

Who could have foreseen this?!

Literally everybody, as it turns out

points costs for wargear upgrades won't be happening until Codexes come out, this is the serious downside of the "data card" idea, that sort of upgrade starts to get a lot harder to manage - even with points elsewhere in the manual outside this its too much of a change

 Galef wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
So my 1000pt Eldar list went up 25pts due to the Fire Prism change. Ok, so I drop my Rangers.
What do I do with the extra 30pts? Maybe add an enhancement I didn’t really want, or start from scratch?
That’s the issue, there are no small adjustments anymore.

Again, I'm in complete agreement with you.
At the VERY least it would be nice to be able to add extra models to units WITHOUT having to go to the max unit size.
But also giving some units an actual cost for their most useful piece of wargear would be great too.

Paying extra 1 piece of wargear on the occasional unit would not make the game much more complex for new players and would easily give list-building options to add or remove a few things without having to drop whole units and still have a deficit in your points.

-

I was writing my post before I saw your response so it wasn’t a direct reaction to your comment. I agree with you solution of just limited upgrade costs, especially to the worst offenders.
It would be ok if rules for each weapon balanced each other but they clearly don’t. In regard to support weapon example D-cannon > Shadow weaver > Vibro cannon.
The vibro should be nowhere near that of the d cannon. Shame because I love the way the vibro cannon looks, but it’s worthless currently, especially at the inflated price (it was crap before the increase)

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?

2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.

The Wraithknight was upped for towering, which is a "problem" for all the builds. The problem build was mostly hit with the Fate nerf.

Now, if you ask me if I think points are a good way to fix towering... absolutely not. It's a terrible way to fix the problem.

 LunarSol wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?

I give to you the vibro canon, D-canon, spinner thingy weapon platform for eldar. The point cost it optimised around one profile. The spinner one would be a potential one to run, for the utility and potential plink damage, but not the point cost of the platform it has right now.

also the entire big knight thing in chaos knight lists.

 LunarSol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?

2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.

The Wraithknight was upped for towering, which is a "problem" for all the builds. The problem build was mostly hit with the Fate nerf.

Now, if you ask me if I think points are a good way to fix towering... absolutely not. It's a terrible way to fix the problem.

OK, how would towering result in a 100+ point hike for a melee build?

Don't play the melee build. It is bad. It is like the wright infantry, for some reason the melee dudes, who are incomperable worse then the shoting ones, cost more points. It ain't just an eldar problem, someone at the studio thought it is a good idea to punish all those people that bought 30 sang guard for 9th, and not just gimmped their rules in an already melee unfriendly edition, but also made them cost like twice what venguard vets cost. And venguard vets are considered bad.

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.

Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.

What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?

2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.

The Wraithknight was upped for towering, which is a "problem" for all the builds. The problem build was mostly hit with the Fate nerf.

Now, if you ask me if I think points are a good way to fix towering... absolutely not. It's a terrible way to fix the problem.

OK, how would towering result in a 100+ point hike for a melee build?

This is why points are a terrible way to fix towering.

 LunarSol wrote:

This is why points are a terrible way to fix towering.

Yes, but still a better way than what they did.

Well it probably means that the points cost of a melee and shoty version of a WK should not be the same. But really an eldar list can "carry" melee WK, they still dunk on the majority of armies post the change. There will be few or no triples or doubles of some options, but we will see more maxed out tanks, warp spiders.
The only difference between now and yestarday, is that a WK doesn't invalidate majority of other armies, turn 1. One even with the changes is still a super powerful and very point efficient unit. I mean compare it to the Skull dude in WE or the for some reason points hiked orkish Naught? That is like the same point cost range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

This is why points are a terrible way to fix towering.

Yes, but still a better way than what they did.

moving an army from +65% win rates to probably something like 60% isn't much of a fix though. Especialy when the bad armies stay bad, and some will stay that way till summer seson 2024.

There is not enough data for any of the win rate % to really be valid beyond basic "this faction is way too powerful" analysis. Plus you have different house rules getting adopted, so the game isn't even a standard thing really. Have to wait for the FAQ, then let things settle for a month or two, before you can look at win rates as anything more than very vague estimates.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.

Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.

Hecaton wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.

Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.

Which ones? For curiosity sake.

Hecaton wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.

Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.

Where is that happening? I know Redditors will just downvote but at least it isn't FULLY censored.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.

Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.

Where is that happening? I know Redditors will just downvote but at least it isn't FULLY censored.

Nor can I see B&C slapping people which is usually somewhere very upbeat (I'm too negative over there).

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.

Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.

Which ones? For curiosity sake.

Ork discord was what I was talking about.

Simmer down people and stop with personal digs and attacks, lets keep this thread on topic.

ccs wrote:
So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

Well, I expected them to do better than this.

Satisfying the community is not impossible. Except, perhaps, for GW's design team, but that seems to be more a matter of incompetence than unwillingness.

GW had, during 9th, refused to balance options appropriately with points. Now they've abdicated that responsibility entirely to the detriment of game balance. That's on them, not the community; hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's not like people didn't warn about this happening.

Who could have foreseen this?!

Literally everybody, as it turns out

3:1 ratio in this thread wouldn't agree with that.

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

That's on them, not the community; hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

Isn't it so strange some of the posters here refuse to do so for what aren't very good reasons?

Dudeface wrote:


I am sad they didn't seize the chance tbh, this was the moment to regain a little trust and confidence.

There was no way they were going to back pedal their points decision this soon.

If they are going to do so I suspect it will be like one of the following:

- As official codex comes out. This is fine but it means some index will be running this old points system for too long. You would also have to assume they planned for this as some codex are already in stages of completion if not ready at printers.
- A mass release points update. Would be ideal but given their pipeline, I wouldn't expect this in the short terms. Perhaps after a year of experimenting will they potentially see the light. Perhaps as a 10.5 reset.

GW is in a catch 22 situation here. One, where they themselves maneuvered them into.

A) If they announce that point differentiation will come back, nobody is going to buy additional stuff to bring existing units up to snuff with all upgrades in fear that it won't be useful anymore.

B) If they don't say anything, players who are unsatisfied with the current approach will stay unhappy.

C) If they introduce it with a codex without prior announcement, it will be similar to A) and players who kitted out their stuff for that faction are mega pissed for having spent money on upgrades that they won't take anymore.

D) If they don't introduce it with a codex, it will be similar to B).