|
|
Post by No One on Feb 5, 2020 8:51:22 GMT
But GW won't do any of this hah hah so... OK sorry for my rant guys I don't know why you're being so defeatist on this: GW have demonstrated they're perfectly happy to nerf things (though it does sometimes take longer than it should've...). Marines are no exception (repulsor exec, IH). Will they do enough, quick enough? We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by xtztxtxz on Feb 5, 2020 9:07:25 GMT
But GW won't do any of this hah hah so... OK sorry for my rant guys I don't know why you're being so defeatist on this: GW have demonstrated they're perfectly happy to nerf things (though it does sometimes take longer than it should've...). Marines are no exception (repulsor exec, IH). Will they do enough, quick enough? We'll see. The main issue is with the timing of the marine release. GW have already promised not to do any more kneejerk nerfs to new books so people have a chance to use them as printed (errata not withstanding). As the supplements came out just before/after the Sept Big FAQ, that means the next opportunity to deal with them is April. I believe GW will make changes; the stats from recent events are indisputable. But thanks to how the release & update schedules interact we just have to wait a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Feb 5, 2020 9:13:32 GMT
GW have already promised not to do any more kneejerk nerfs to new books so people have a chance to use them as printed (errata not withstanding). A: When did the do that, and B: IH. They already have? (Also C: marine dex has been out for half a year and part of the issue is just some units are too undercosted, regardless of supplements: those just exacerbate it/give support for the rest of the army). Edit: Not saying they will do something before April, but...well, they've been waiting on the CA FAQ for a month, they've probably done that for a reason. It's not outside the realm of possibility if you want to be optimistic. But I'd say it's very pessimistic to not expect anything with the April FAQ, and definitely eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by xtztxtxz on Feb 5, 2020 9:28:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by purestrain on Feb 5, 2020 13:12:32 GMT
Promising strats being shown in the Tau faction focus. If AM get the same strat (fire D6 weps at max for 1CP) it's still an option we have. I get some people want to do "pure" GSC but pride has to be dropped sometimes. I just want GSC point updates.. And good ones. Bringing Aberrants back down to where they need to be, Purestrains going down, characters going down (some may argue this.. but as a BA player as well.. Paying 80 points for a Magus or 75 for a Primus that melt like better is NOT the right cost) Faction focus coming soon at least. And I'm excited for whichever of GSC and AM comes out first! That would be way too strong. 18 Baneblade battlecannon shots? with all 6 demolishers? Use it when you face Chaos and Vengeance for cadia to 1 hit knights, have 4 las cannons to destroy maybe a lev or another tank of sorts |
|
|
|
Post by xtztxtxz on Feb 5, 2020 13:24:11 GMT
If AM get the same strat it won't work on Titanic units like Baneblades. Would be terrifying on Wyverns though.
|
|
|
|
Post by mule on Feb 5, 2020 15:04:46 GMT
Point increases can deal with absolutely any situation and unit. Unit protected because they are characters ? Bump them to 150-200 points. See if they are still an issue then ! TFC ? Bump them up to 130 points, see if people still take them. Tremor shell, bump it to 3 CP. But GW won't do any of this hah hah so... OK sorry for my rant guys That's not true. ITC is all about not losing points. It doesn't matter if our flyers are 50 points each, they're not good enough to take. Some units are just not good in the current meta or there are better options. They need better rules that change the profile. PA doesn't help much because you're not really getting anything for free, it's just more CP you have to spend which takes away from your other units better abilities. Obviously some CP changes are nice but things like maleceptor aura should just be innate, same with lictors deny or genestealers giving other things -1. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Feb 5, 2020 15:06:10 GMT
MAX SHOT BANEBLADES GOOOOOOOOOOO
honestly yea if you stack that on a Manticore or a Wyvern, something gets hurt really badly. 12 shots of Manticore man, or 8d6 of full reroll wyverns. Even marines are going to feel that one in the morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by killercroc on Feb 5, 2020 15:18:43 GMT
Max shot strat? sweet I can get behind that! As someone with gunline guard w/ arty support getting max shots for something like a Wyvern will be handy. There was also that one that let Bullgryns give infantry -1 to be hit if they're closer which is nice because I wanted to add some sladshields to my front line. Here's to hoping Ogryns get a buff or a strat because them with ripper guns is pretty meh especially if the option is a Ogrynor a Bullgryn I think the Bullgryns win it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by draaen on Feb 5, 2020 15:22:54 GMT
Happy for my Tau to get mono sept focused armies a separate bonus. Hopefully that trend continues through the rest of the book. I'm not seeing that in the Warhammer community reveal. Can you point to where you're seeing this? I re-read it and either I just misread earlier or there was a ninja edit but my statement was wrong. No separate bonuses. Sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Feb 6, 2020 13:51:41 GMT
I don't know why you're being so defeatist on this: GW have demonstrated they're perfectly happy to nerf things (though it does sometimes take longer than it should've...). Marines are no exception (repulsor exec, IH). Will they do enough, quick enough? We'll see. I don't know that they have shown they know how to balance things at all. Nearly all nerfs have resulted in huge power swings. The list is long: horrors splitting for free, cultists recycling over and over, mental onslaught, castellan, commissars, conscripts, plaguebearers, malefic lords, abominants, pyrovores (I jest, I jest), jackals with blasting charges, biovores (probably right now, so probably doesn't belong on this list), 1,000,000 mortars, all flyer armies, turn 1 charges, and list goes on and on. In each case GW seems incapable of addressing a problem without overcompensating so hard that they make the unit nearly unplayable. Often times they then have a new release that is more of a problem. The castellan could have been left untouched and the new marine codex and supplements would have brought right back in line. Instead they nerfed it so hard that they made all knight armies nearly unplayable. Turn 1 charges were removed from everyone (including GSC and that was our thing) and then given back to Space Marines. The meta keeps moving from one boogey-man to the next. I get why turn 1 deep strikes were taken away, but then give till turn 4 for deep striking to allow for a little tactical flexibility. Right now the only way to sort things out as far as I can see is to release a new SM book and give us another addition. That's how far they have skewed things with the wild over-reactions. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Feb 6, 2020 14:19:38 GMT
I don't know that they have shown they know how to balance things at all. Nearly all nerfs have resulted in huge power swings. The list is long: horrors splitting for free, cultists recycling over and over, mental onslaught, castellan, commissars, conscripts, plaguebearers, malefic lords, abominants, pyrovores (I jest, I jest), jackals with blasting charges, biovores (probably right now, so probably doesn't belong on this list), 1,000,000 mortars, all flyer armies, turn 1 charges, and list goes on and on. In each case GW seems incapable of addressing a problem without overcompensating so hard that they make the unit nearly unplayable. A: That relates to my point...how? B: They overnerf, then (eventually) buff back to equilibrium. Which is, IMO opinion, a perfectly reasonable balance philosophy. Except they've got a timescale of year+, which sucks. See: biovores, dark reapers, shining spears, cultists. Most of the rest are fine (MO is fine, fliers are still good), a reasonable nerf that just missed the meta boat (plaguebearers) and/or really recent. You mean like the IH nerf over-reaction? Oh wait. The skew is almost entirely from the marine books: overnerf them, oh woops, fix them back at the end of the year and everything's fine. Tweak as appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Feb 6, 2020 14:48:45 GMT
I don't know that they have shown they know how to balance things at all. Nearly all nerfs have resulted in huge power swings. The list is long: horrors splitting for free, cultists recycling over and over, mental onslaught, castellan, commissars, conscripts, plaguebearers, malefic lords, abominants, pyrovores (I jest, I jest), jackals with blasting charges, biovores (probably right now, so probably doesn't belong on this list), 1,000,000 mortars, all flyer armies, turn 1 charges, and list goes on and on. In each case GW seems incapable of addressing a problem without overcompensating so hard that they make the unit nearly unplayable. A: That relates to my point...how? B: They overnerf, then (eventually) buff back to equilibrium. Which is, IMO opinion, a perfectly reasonable balance philosophy. Except they've got a timescale of year+, which sucks. See: biovores, dark reapers, shining spears, cultists. Most of the rest are fine (MO is fine, fliers are still good), a reasonable nerf that just missed the meta boat (plaguebearers) and/or really recent. You mean like the IH nerf over-reaction? Oh wait. The skew is almost entirely from the marine books: overnerf them, oh woops, fix them back at the end of the year and everything's fine. Tweak as appropriate. Most of the things I mentioned still aren't fixed. No reason to ever take conscripts when they cost the same as guardsmen and fail 50% of the orders you give them. Commissars are still awful. I could go on, but you get the point. I appreciate that they try to fix things, that is something. It's just that they appear to not have a grasp on WHY the things are overpowered in the game so they knee jerk nerf to oblivion or make wild costs adjustments. When they do try to re-balance unused units it still doesn't work. ie. the reasons no on one takes toxicrenes and haurspexes in their lists isn't because they cost 50 points too much. 50 points you can find a way to work around if you want to and still be pretty competitive. It's a simple failure of understanding that their basic stat line is a non-starter. How does it relate to your point? I find the "Don't worry GW will fix it in the future" to be a bit Polyannaish and naive. For every successful 'fix' I can show you 7 things they still didn't get right. I constantly find myself being accused of being a GW fan boy or hater. I don't think I'm either, but rather a skeptical fan of the hobby. If you find that a reasonable way to balance a game system I honestly don't know what to say. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Feb 6, 2020 15:57:38 GMT
I find the "Don't worry GW will fix it in the future" to be a bit Polyannaish and naive. Which is a thing I never said. Will they do enough, quick enough? We'll see. Like, they'll do something. Whether it's appropriate, an innefective bandage fix, stopgap, or a sledgehammer, we'll find out. Sure it is: is it the best? No. But with the depth of choice that 40k has, it's an approach that would work fine: anything becomes a major issue, it definitely won't be after a balance update, and the meta doesn't stagnate. Large initial changes don't give great immediate balance, but it also balances out quicker. To give an example: imagine if nothing otherwise changed with the meta around flyrant spam. But GWs response was to only nerf it by 5 pts: it'd have done nothing. Then next CA or whatever, another 5 pts: still probably nothing. And, bar other meta changes, it's flyrant dominated for a while. Where as the 20 pt hike had an immediate impact. The issue with this approach is, as I said, time: this works fine if it's based on performance relatively current, and is re-examined fairly quickly. Having a unit be overnerfed, but then buffed up into a good spot 3/6 months later is OK. Same scenario but 1-2 years later? Less so. (Like, I'm not saying that the response should be to auto double points or absolute sledgehammer any unit into unusability here: but err on the side of overnerf rather than undernerf. If something's a large issue and everyone's complaining about it and it gets overnerfed to be fixed later, it's not a huge problem. If it's given a minor nerf that doesn't really drop it and it's still oppressive...). |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Feb 6, 2020 16:47:56 GMT
To give an example: imagine if nothing otherwise changed with the meta around flyrant spam. But GWs response was to only nerf it by 5 pts: it'd have done nothing. Then next CA or whatever, another 5 pts: still probably nothing. And, bar other meta changes, it's flyrant dominated for a while. Where as the 20 pt hike had an immediate impact. The 20 point hike had like zero impact. The rule of three and smite adjustment fixed the flyrant spam problem. The 20 point hike simply meant that in addition to solving the spam they also nerfed a unit that was useful in less skewed lists. The point bump was un-needed. Abominant: big points increase and a -1 to hit. No it's shocking to see one. Malanthrope: way too cheap, a bit too pricey. Then a nerf to it's ability because of the change to re-rolls. Mind control: nearly useless. Psychic Onslaught: about the damage output of smite. Ynarri: big points increases that hurt Aeldari players when it was the Ynarri rules that were at issue. etc. Bolt Action and Infinity have a better track record of keeping things balanced and not making wild swings to models power level without considering the effect on the game. The play testers even told GW that SM were way out of line and they released it anyway. That's pretty disheartening. It is what it is, but I think that it is going to really hurt the game in the next year. |
|
