Spring FAQ thoughts?

[Finkmilkana]

One thing to remember a out those statistics though: Since some armies are a bit worse than others, players who play to actually win tournaments will usually not play them at the tournament. This can bias the win ratio of those factions even further down. If only people who mainly for fun play army A and mainly players who want to win at all cost (which, for a tournament is obviously fair game) play army B, army B will have an even higher win ration than if player types where equally distributed over armies.

This obviously does not mean that GK are anywhere close to being fine (they are very much not), just that looking at pure numbers can be misleading.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Finkmilkana

[Panzer]

One thing to remember a out those statistics though: Since some armies are a bit worse than others, players who play to actually win tournaments will usually not play them at the tournament. This can bias the win ratio of those factions even further down. If only people who mainly for fun play army A and mainly players who want to win at all cost (which, for a tournament is obviously fair game) play army B, army B will have an even higher win ration than if player types where equally distributed over armies.

This obviously does not mean that GK are anywhere close to being fine (they are very much not), just that looking at pure numbers can be misleading.

 

Well if anything it just confirms that those with low winrate aren't up there with the rest. ^^

[Bat33.1]

GW identified soup as a big problem for 8th last year and how exactly did they solve that in CA to improve balance?

 

Point me to a mono codex army outside of Knights and possibly Craftworlds - even though you will rarely see anything but Eldar soup - that can go 4-0 reliably?

 

I'd also put SW near GK in terms of game winning ability in competitive play, so much so that if you look at any large event outside of ToS you are very unlikely to find a SW or GK army competing. You may get an odd one or two but they are mostly sat on shelves or playing club games right now.

 

The question we should be asking though imo is: Does balance in 40k need to be built around the tournament scene min/max army builds? GW needs to have some balance mechanism for tournament play obviously but is that really key to keeping the game strong and growing?

[chapter master 454]

Also, let's not forget that something that GW considers a minor fix might ende up being a huge balance shift. Like the FLY nerf, that was implemented for 1 reason only (because Juice from Long War managed to pull off 1" charges after deepstriking 10" on top of the unit he wanted to charge in front of a rules writer at a tournament). The obvious solution to this problem would've been to state that deepstrikes have to be at least 9" horisontally from the closest enemy unit, not the thing they came up with.

 

This is something I never got because it seems rather niche in what it is so can someone explain what was going on? Like what did the change actually do and WHY was it done as I don't get what the player did.

[Panzer]

The thing is that GW identified "soup" to be "multiple factions in the same detachment" which is kinda ridiculous lol

[Panzer]

 

Also, let's not forget that something that GW considers a minor fix might ende up being a huge balance shift. Like the FLY nerf, that was implemented for 1 reason only (because Juice from Long War managed to pull off 1" charges after deepstriking 10" on top of the unit he wanted to charge in front of a rules writer at a tournament). The obvious solution to this problem would've been to state that deepstrikes have to be at least 9" horisontally from the closest enemy unit, not the thing they came up with.

 

This is something I never got because it seems rather niche in what it is so can someone explain what was going on? Like what did the change actually do and WHY was it done as I don't get what the player did.

 

 

FLY said that you can ignore vertical distance when moving, So when you deep strike a unit with Jump Packs and similar on top of a tall ruin >9" above an enemy unit you can charge it while completely ignoring the the vertical 9" which often enabled 0-3" charges out of reserves.

GWs reaction to it was to completely forbid using FLY movement outside of the movement phase. Hence why you can't jump over other units during the charge, pile in and consolidation moves anymore either. Once more their usual heavy handed approach.

[MARK0SIAN]

GW identified soup as a big problem for 8th last year and how exactly did they solve that in CA to improve balance?

 

Point me to a mono codex army outside of Knights and possibly Craftworlds - even though you will rarely see anything but Eldar soup - that can go 4-0 reliably?

 

I'd also put SW near GK in terms of game winning ability in competitive play, so much so that if you look at any large event outside of ToS you are very unlikely to find a SW or GK army competing. You may get an odd one or two but they are mostly sat on shelves or playing club games right now.

 

The question we should be asking though imo is: Does balance in 40k need to be built around the tournament scene min/max army builds? GW needs to have some balance mechanism for tournament play obviously but is that really key to keeping the game strong and growing?

I’m not sure how big a role tournaments should play in the overall aim for balance (especially tournaments that add in rules that GW did not create) but they’re a good indicator certainly if something is overpowered or underpowered.

 

However if any force (soup or solo) can reliably go 4-0 at tournaments then that is a big problem for the overall health of the game and an indicator that the force needs a nerf because it seeps into casual games. Even in a friendly, non-waac pick up game you don’t want on guy having to go “well that’s game over for me.” As soon as he sees he’s up against a particular faction just because their units/codex are just so much more powerful than his.

Edited April 28, 2019 by MARK0SIAN

[Ipsen]

The fly change wasn't specifically because of the charge distance but because the model charged straight through a terrain piece.

[PiñaColada]

The fly change wasn't specifically because of the charge distance but because the model charged straight through a terrain piece.

That's incorrect, you could see the situation unfold on video. He charged straight down alongside broken floors (ie not through the building). They discussed this on the Long War podcast way back when it happened and basically the rules writer didn't understand how the rules interacted in this specific scenario and they changed it too hastily thereafter. It was however because of the distance since the terrain feature wasn't charged through.

[ERJAK]

GW identified soup as a big problem for 8th last year and how exactly did they solve that in CA to improve balance?

 

Point me to a mono codex army outside of Knights and possibly Craftworlds - even though you will rarely see anything but Eldar soup - that can go 4-0 reliably?

 

I'd also put SW near GK in terms of game winning ability in competitive play, so much so that if you look at any large event outside of ToS you are very unlikely to find a SW or GK army competing. You may get an odd one or two but they are mostly sat on shelves or playing club games right now.

 

The question we should be asking though imo is: Does balance in 40k need to be built around the tournament scene min/max army builds? GW needs to have some balance mechanism for tournament play obviously but is that really key to keeping the game strong and growing?

Orkz(yes Ork players, they've taken a crap ton if top 8s, they ARE competitive), Craftworld Eldar, Ynnari (technically a monofaction) and GSC are all more than capable of 4-0ing. Even Tau have a decent shot. GSC, Orkz and Ynari are straight up top tier.

 

Also, Mono knights aren't very good. Certainly not as good as Orkz or CWE.

 

Also, if not tournaments, then what are they gonna use? Beer and pretzels games against friends? That kind of balancing is how you get Cabal Star and Thunderstar, and Bark Bark star, and 2++ rerollable blue horrors.

Edited April 28, 2019 by ERJAK

[Ishagu]

What win ratios are you referring to?

To me those loss ratios vary enormously, therefore so must the win ratios.

 

Balance appears to be in a terrible state, can the FAQ fix it? Not if GW fails to acknowledge it.

I'm talking about overall data, not the few lists that go on to win events. I think that it's not as bad as things have been in the past. In previous editions it was literally impossible for some armies to beat others.

 

Things could be better, no question about that. We shouldn't be hyperbolic however. Compared to chess the game is wildly unbalanced. Compared to 7th edition it's far better.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Ishagu

[kombatwombat]

-snip-

 

Good write up Crimson, but I more meant that Ishagu repeatedly makes this assertion:

 

I'm talking about overall data, not the few lists that go on to win events. I think that it's not as bad as things have been in the past. In previous editions it was literally impossible for some armies to beat others.

 

Things could be better, no question about that. We shouldn't be hyperbolic however. Compared to chess the game is wildly unbalanced. Compared to 7th edition it's far better.

without any data to back him up. He may be right, he may be wrong, but with nothing backing it up the assertion is worthless. What I’m asking is if we have any data (rather than anecdotes) that can either prove or disprove the statement that we’re better off now than in 7th?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The game is a better state than 7th edition but that’s really not saying much. I do like this edition but there’s plenty of problems.

[HandsWithLegs]

I'm starting to wonder if the only reason that the FAQ is taking so long is that they didn't want to put it up while they have the community page all decorated for Slaanesh and AOS this week. Seems like they might not want to distract from that and focus on the new stuff for the week.

[templargdt]

I'm guessing the FAQ drops the 30th.  No major changes except maybe a points increase to the Castellan and bonus CP for mono-faction lists.  

I would love to know if GW has a plan at all for Grey Knights.  Mine have been sitting on a shelf for a long, long time.

[Ishagu]

The only change Castellan (and Knights in general) needs is to reduce the Ion shield to a max of 4++

 

If it can be destroyed more easily all problems are resolved. It's already do expensive.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Ishagu

[templargdt]

This has been asked a lot on the net over the last few months, and I've done my best to relay the information GW has given us. This is GW's initial post about the FAQ schedule, which was shortly after the first Chapter approved. This was the first Big FAQ, which includes them announcing that future Spring FAQs would be in April. This is big FAQ 2, this past fall. And finally, their announcement of the Spring FAQ this year, though it's light on any actual details we didn't already know.

 

Some takeaways:

• The first Big FAQ came out on a Tuesday
• The second came out on a Friday (and on the 28th of September)

 

Can you back that up?

Genuinely interested.

 

40kstats.com certainly tries to quantify the game's balance, or at least the competitive meta. He even has an interesting, baseball-esque stat: TiWP, or Tournaments in Winning Position (that is, how often a primary faction went 4-0). The highest for that fun stat is Knights at 11.9%, with Orks (10%), Daemons (9.4%), IG (7.5%), Ynnarri (7.5%), Drukhari (6.3%), Tyranids (6.3%), GSC (5.6%), and Tau (5.6%) all within my arbitrarily-chosen-distance. That is the percentage chance of going 4-0 with that primary faction.

 

That seems a decent spread to me. Obviously, there's so much more to balance that that, but it does at least show me that I think we're in a decent place when it comes to faction variety.

I'd never heard of this website, great find, thank you.  The results are just hilarious.  In order, bottom of the list for win % below literally every other faction including sisters of battle:

- Space Marines

- Space Wolves

- Dark Angels

- Grey Knights 

- Blood Angels

And I would bet cash money the 'Space Marines' entry could just as easily say 'Guilliman + others'.

[toaae]

I'll bet a considerable amount of mold-line-cleaning the Castellan goes up. That's the impression I've gotten from Geoff Robinson on the Chapter Tactics podcast, and in other places. He doesn't think it'll take it out of the meta, but that it will result in it not being so ubiquitous.

[Bat33.1]

 

GW identified soup as a big problem for 8th last year and how exactly did they solve that in CA to improve balance?

 

Point me to a mono codex army outside of Knights and possibly Craftworlds - even though you will rarely see anything but Eldar soup - that can go 4-0 reliably?

 

I'd also put SW near GK in terms of game winning ability in competitive play, so much so that if you look at any large event outside of ToS you are very unlikely to find a SW or GK army competing. You may get an odd one or two but they are mostly sat on shelves or playing club games right now.

 

The question we should be asking though imo is: Does balance in 40k need to be built around the tournament scene min/max army builds? GW needs to have some balance mechanism for tournament play obviously but is that really key to keeping the game strong and growing?

Orkz(yes Ork players, they've taken a crap ton if top 8s, they ARE competitive), Craftworld Eldar, Ynnari (technically a monofaction) and GSC are all more than capable of 4-0ing. Even Tau have a decent shot. GSC, Orkz and Ynari are straight up top tier.

 

Also, Mono knights aren't very good. Certainly not as good as Orkz or CWE.

 

Also, if not tournaments, then what are they gonna use? Beer and pretzels games against friends? That kind of balancing is how you get Cabal Star and Thunderstar, and Bark Bark star, and 2++ rerollable blue horrors.

 

 

Yeah sorry about that I was a bit loose on my thinking with Knights as I forgot they nearly always take the IG CP farm.

 

I always wonder with Orks how much is down to being able to play the time limit in tournaments as they were certainly played to advantage by some less scrupulous players slow playing in tournaments to score early and only play 3 turns before the time limit. No doubting they are strong top tier faction. I've not seen much of GSC locally so bow to greater knowledge. 

 

Giving GW some slack it's not so easy to balance a game across so many books with all the Errata, FAQ, CA, campaign books and now formations returning especially as many GW rules writers seem to be quite ignorant of how some of their own rules work outside of the studio and their own gaming groups. When you hear them on WHTV in a tactics show telling us that Ironclad Dreadnoughts are awesome and super powerful I just roll my eyes in disbelief.

 

The delay in the FAQ could be as simple as the main writer is ill and off work they don't have much slack in the rules team if anybody is absent but I'm not holding my breath for it to arrive.

Edited April 28, 2019 by PJ1933