new balance data slate update this Thursday

[jaxom]

25 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Nah, i think they stay above 60%.  The Tier 2 armies TSons, Custodes, Knights, and GSC got hit hard too.  

 

13 minutes ago, Wolf Guard Dan said:

Agree. The stuff that had play into them got hit harder than they did. 

 

Necrons though are relatively unscathed. With the change to Devasting Wounds, I don't know if Aeldari can shift the 3x 20 Warriors+Cryptothralls+'Mancer Reanimation Circus without radically changing what the top lists tend to have in them. If they do shift, they lose their weapons against high Toughness multiwound creatures which would leave them more vulnerable to other lists.

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Well, the years start commin and they dont stop comin

Fed to the rules and I hit the ground runnin 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

Has the WH app updated for anyone in the US (or anywhere) yet? Mine is still showing old point values.

[Nephaston]

2 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

Has the WH app updated for anyone in the US (or anywhere) yet? Mine is still showing old point values.

Have you tried updating it directly from the app store?

[zero888]

20 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

Has the WH app updated for anyone in the US (or anywhere) yet? Mine is still showing old point values.

Yes, Android store had an update for the app and it was in there.

 

These point values are getting pretty ridiculously low; I wish everything would have been expensive and have less models on the board, these drops aren't sustainable for an edition that is three months old

[Jukkiz]

5 minutes ago, zero888 said:

Yes, Android store had an update for the app and it was in there.

 

These point values are getting pretty ridiculously low; I wish everything would have been expensive and have less models on the board, these drops aren't sustainable for an edition that is three months old

But how else are they selling you more plastics?!

[Sea Creature]

Very impressed, I did not expect they would encompass so much change.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Sea Creature

[TheMawr]

3 hours ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Nah, i think they stay above 60%.  The Tier 2 armies TSons, Custodes, Knights, and GSC got hit hard too.  

 

Meta and Tier arent necessary equal things nor a "step based" system.. I dont know how to explain exactly what I mean, but I see these kind of remarks alot regarding the changes.. and its not quite how things work.

Hypothetical scenario ( based on no actual or previous stats/matchups.. just to paint an example what I mean ) ;

For example, it could be that previously DG where a potential good counter for eldar.. but as it was only there and only barely.. this matchup doesnt happen enough to make a dent in the meta, meanwhile it could be that eldar where, most of all, especially strong against spacemarines.. the second most played army in some tournaments (and prime one in some others.)

a buff to DG could mean an exponential rise in DG players, a nerf in spacemarines could mean a massive decline in spacemarine players... if this balance scales extreme enough then eldar armies mostly meet their bane on tournaments.. not their preferred target, meaning that even though they only got a small hit themselves they could pummel waay down in the meta.

Meta is a little bit more complex than tier is.

 

I dont mean this as a "eldar will become balanced now" argument, as I dont know enough about math hammer to estimate that, this is purely to paint how a meta is a little bit more fickle than armies stepping down 1 step, meaning the next one steps up one step.

 

 

On another note ( after all I like wild speculating about releases more than rule analysis ;) ) I wonder if the armies where a faction rule change make more sense but didnt get it are in fact armies relatively "soon" on the codex roadmap ( Votann and DG).. after all they are not going to change the army rule now if the printed codex will have the old one again ( wich is less of a issue with detachments, of wich there will be multiple.) and thus also armies that did get faction rule changes are a bit further down the line. ( GSC and Knights )

Though that might be overthinking things.. and even a little bit offtopic.

 

 

 

[OttoVonAwesome]

4 hours ago, Minsc said:

I like the Dev. Wound-chamge  but the "FnP against Mortal Wounds"-rule has basically been reduced to "FnP against Deadly Demise (and some other odd abilities)"-rule.

 

Makes it quite weird as an army/detatchmemt-rule, *looks att Custodes* 

Yeah this is really bad news for Custodes. Sure you nerfed a couple of lame Eldar tricks but at the same time you made Custodes way more vulnerable. I will super surprised if Custodes don't fall below 50% in ranking or even further.

[Indy Techwisp]

3 hours ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

Nah, i think they stay above 60%.  The Tier 2 armies TSons, Custodes, Knights, and GSC got hit hard too.  

 

>Tier 2 Armies

>TSons

 

We were about as close to the other 3 there as Earth is as close to Andromeda

[Indy Techwisp]

23 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

Meta and Tier arent necessary equal things nor a "step based" system.. I dont know how to explain exactly what I mean, but I see these kind of remarks alot regarding the changes.. and its not quite how things work.

Hypothetical scenario ( based on no actual or previous stats/matchups.. just to paint an example what I mean ) ;

For example, it could be that previously DG where a potential good counter for eldar.. but as it was only there and only barely.. this matchup doesnt happen enough to make a dent in the meta, meanwhile it could be that eldar where, most of all, especially strong against spacemarines.. the second most played army in some tournaments (and prime one in some others.)

a buff to DG could mean an exponential rise in DG players, a nerf in spacemarines could mean a massive decline in spacemarine players... if this balance scales extreme enough then eldar armies mostly meet their bane on tournaments.. not their preferred target, meaning that even though they only got a small hit themselves they could pummel waay down in the meta.

Meta is a little bit more complex than tier is.

 

I dont mean this as a "eldar will become balanced now" argument, as I dont know enough about math hammer to estimate that, this is purely to paint how a meta is a little bit more fickle than armies stepping down 1 step, meaning the next one steps up one step.

 

 

On another note ( after all I like wild speculating about releases more than rule analysis ;) ) I wonder if the armies where a faction rule change make more sense but didnt get it are in fact armies relatively "soon" on the codex roadmap ( Votann and DG).. after all they are not going to change the army rule now if the printed codex will have the old one again ( wich is less of a issue with detachments, of wich there will be multiple.) and thus also armies that did get faction rule changes are a bit further down the line. ( GSC and Knights )

Though that might be overthinking things.. and even a little bit offtopic.

 

From what I've been seeing, TSons were one of the main counters to Necrons and also are THE most common Opponents T'au were facing is both the faction and comp Reddits are accurate.

So with TSons now way less viable due to everything that triggers our Army rule getting a price hike meaning we've gone from Outnumbered to "Practically bringing a KillTeam list" numbers of units, more Necrons won't meet their main counter at higher brackets and more (now exceedingly larger) T'au lists will escape lower brackets, throwing two factions into the mix that previously were either uncommonly seen or not relevant to the Meta at all.

[OttoVonAwesome]

10 hours ago, Doobles88 said:

Perfect solution and the one I was hoping for. They'd done a bunch of work differentiating anti-personal and anti-tank weaponry and Devastating Wounds ruined all that by turning high damage weapons into anti-everything. Good move.

I don't think they changed a thing with this new ruling. If they had turned devastating into rending bypassing only armour saves then that would be something but this actually creates a new problem. Your still taking these weapons to kill everything cuase now there's no defense against them at all they just don't spill wounds over into infantry and only a handfull of devastating weapons were even in danger of doing that.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

Man.. I'm going to have to drop so much money on land raiders over the course of this edition. Not only are they good, but the points keep dropping and just about every army I collect needs them 

[The Spitehorde]

1 hour ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

Man.. I'm going to have to drop so much money on land raiders over the course of this edition. Not only are they good, but the points keep dropping and just about every army I collect needs them 

 

Cynical, moi? 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by The Spitehorde

[Toldavf]

I suppose the biggest thing that hurts custodies is the lack of any kind of defence against Devastating wounds, lower model count and no fnp vs those abilities will suck for them. 

[Guest]

No changes to Battle-shock (other than Insane Bravery being once per game now) is a disappointment. Very positive changes overall though, imo.

 

I'm a newcomer both to B&C and the game in general (although I did get some small-scale games in before 10th launched) so I might be overstepping my boundaries, but here goes: are we sure the negative responses in this thread aren't residual "10th bad" energy? I hated the loss of granularity in list building and "simplified, not simple" being such a hilariously incorrect description, but to me this update looks great, not only in terms of its actual content but in the willingness it shows from the designers to make sweeping changes. Even if 10th is still borked, surely it won't take too many updates with this kind of scope to fix it?

[Malakithe]

12 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Desolators could have been fixed by removing them completely from existence

Fixed 

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 minute ago, Lucius_The_Temporary said:

No changes to Battle-shock (other than Insane Bravery being once per game now) is a disappointment. Very positive changes overall though, imo.

 

I'm a newcomer both to B&C and the game in general (although I did get some small-scale games in before 10th launched) so I might be overstepping my boundaries, but here goes: are we sure the negative responses in this thread aren't residual "10th bad" energy? I hated the loss of granularity in list building and "simplified, not simple" being such a hilariously incorrect description, but to me this update looks great, not only in terms of its actual content but in the willingness it shows from the designers to make sweeping changes. Even if 10th is still borked, surely it won't take too many updates with this kind of scope to fix it?

 

"10th bad" energy most likely won't go away until 11th because "10th bad". They said it was simpler, it's not. Mandated power level, set unit sizes and free wargear. Had less balance out the gate than 9th had with all the codex creep and bonker rules. 9 codexes in 12 months... 

 

The balance slate is a step in the right direction, but it should not have been needed or this extreme in the first place. With how much time and money people spend on the hobby, the game might as well not suck, and shouldn't take multiple balance slates and waiting 2 years for a codex to not suck.

[Tonius]

I'm quite happy with the changes. My termie Chappy is just not so good now.

 

About the "10th is bad" vibes, I think that to avoid being disappointed by rule changes and unbalanced lists, one have to play smaller scale games with less variety, that are easily balanced (like Mantic Deadzone ie, which is great BTW).

Warhammer 40k is played by a huge number of people and has a big tournament scene, so balancing the game will always be hard for GW and players will always find "glitches" to benefit hugelly from a certain rule/list/ability.

 

 

 

 

[sairence]

The Knight changes feel a bit harsh all together. I'm fine with most of them, but...they already got their points hiked to account for old towering early on. The increase to Armigers is so so, the change to Towering is exactly what I thought it should be...but making Bondsman only affect the small Knights feels pretty bad and unnecessary. It makes me question if I should bring any at all, or just go full hog big Knights with Assassin support.

 

Bit of a shame, as I really liked the design of IK for this index.

 

Overall, I think the balance change are a big step in the right direction. That said, I don't think it's enough to reign in Eldar. They'll probably drop a bit, but  I expect we'll still see them with 60s winrates.

[Isual]

3 hours ago, Lucius_The_Temporary said:

No changes to Battle-shock (other than Insane Bravery being once per game now) is a disappointment. Very positive changes overall though, imo.

 

I'm a newcomer both to B&C and the game in general (although I did get some small-scale games in before 10th launched) so I might be overstepping my boundaries, but here goes: are we sure the negative responses in this thread aren't residual "10th bad" energy? I hated the loss of granularity in list building and "simplified, not simple" being such a hilariously incorrect description, but to me this update looks great, not only in terms of its actual content but in the willingness it shows from the designers to make sweeping changes. Even if 10th is still borked, surely it won't take too many updates with this kind of scope to fix it?

 

You gonna get that vibe for every edition ever released as 40k has a high number of bitter vets (including me kind off).

 

 BTW. I think trying to balance 40k for competitive play is a fruitless endeavor. Players will just hop to the next op faction breake the game again and keep complaining it's broken.

[Cpt_Reaper]

It really isn't a fruitless endeavour. The community just needs to stop declaring the game is dead every new release/update/edition. Seriously...do people legitimately think older editions were better? I wouldn't go back to pre-8th even if you threatened me, and I'd only begrudgingly go back to 8th or 9th.

[Rhavien]

As a BA player I'm okay with what I see. My list now fits a whole additional baal pred in it. 

Looking forward to play against our Eldar player soon to see how his list has changed. 

[tzeentch9]

3 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

"10th bad" energy most likely won't go away until 11th because "10th bad". They said it was simpler, it's not. Mandated power level, set unit sizes and free wargear. Had less balance out the gate than 9th had with all the codex creep and bonker rules. 9 codexes in 12 months... 

 

The balance slate is a step in the right direction, but it should not have been needed or this extreme in the first place. With how much time and money people spend on the hobby, the game might as well not suck, and shouldn't take multiple balance slates and waiting 2 years for a codex to not suck.

Except those things like power level do make it simpler. Not necessarily better, but it is simpler. They did what they said they were going to do and now some people are upset at that fact

[chapter master 454]

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

It really isn't a fruitless endeavour. The community just needs to stop declaring the game is dead every new release/update/edition. Seriously...do people legitimately think older editions were better? I wouldn't go back to pre-8th even if you threatened me, and I'd only begrudgingly go back to 8th or 9th.

 

First time?

 

A lot of the times, people are rose-tinted glass staring at former editions. Some had interesting ideas and choices, some balance was fun and some...well...lets not.
I can say for certain that 4th edition is just a mess with the Size system. If you thought LoS and Towering was nonsense, just wait until I hide entire knights behind rhinos if that were still a thing because both would be size 3.

Don't even start with blast templates. People shout about them saying they were great...really? You enjoyed watching your horde army opponents (your ideal target) perform the correct tactical move and measuring 2" between EVERY SINGLE ORK they had...and they had 90 odd models to space out...EVERY TIME THEY MOVED. Not just for blast, but for flamer weapons too. And the stupid backwardness of blast templates thus being better if they DID scatter because then they could land inbetween these perfect lattice of ork boys to cause max hits (which at best was 4 btw for your cupcake plate).

 

I will bemoan when I get hit with the bat, but I feel when I moan I don't just call down the sky, annouce the return of Horus and declare the game dead but rather make my comments valid. Knights were in line for nerfs not because they were strong in any real metric right now (Eldar kind of just make any meaningful data impossible right now) but because Towering just outright invalidated entire aspects of gameplay (sort of like Eldar Invalidating the game). So those hits were justified. I don't even mind the lack of points being adjusted if that were the only change just because we would need to see how that shakes out but when they have basically gutted a core mechanic of our faction into being worthless, outright worthless and I will stand on that very hill and challenge all who say that Bondsman has any real value now when the only benefit goes to...snort...our armigers...yes...our small units are truly the damage dealers.

I would maybe consider it reasonable if in exchange they made it so armigers could benefit from multiple bondsman abilites at once. But as it stands...

 

Know what...I got out track. Still salty...anyone got chips (or fries to your americans!) they need salted because I got plenty!