new balance data slate update this Thursday

[brother_b]

14 hours ago, Arbedark said:

 

10th is in no way a response to One Page Rules. 

 

10th definitely still uses points, not power level, no matter how hard you claim otherwise. 

 

And as a bonus:

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with the system of free wargear (the actual implementation in 10th is admittedly problematic). 

I respectfully disagree.

 

GSC acolytes can have an autopistol or habdflamer. The handflamer is always better.
 

This has created a strange situation where GW has invalidated actual plastic components in their acolyte kit. Nobody that wants the best option should ever pick autopistol.

 

Free wargear systems would be great if all options mattered. They just don’t, and points for the premium option was a good solution.

 

Thats gone now, and while we technically have points, it’s basically just power  level when you come down to it.

 

The only advantage of the new “points” versus PL is that the new points options allow more granularity in trying to balance the cost of units.

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, brother_b said:

I respectfully disagree.

 

GSC acolytes can have an autopistol or habdflamer. The handflamer is always better.
 

This has created a strange situation where GW has invalidated actual plastic components in their acolyte kit. Nobody that wants the best option should ever pick autopistol.

 

Free wargear systems would be great if all options mattered. They just don’t, and points for the premium option was a good solution.

 

Thats gone now, and while we technically have points, it’s basically just power  level when you come down to it.

 

The only advantage of the new “points” versus PL is that the new points options allow more granularity in trying to balance the cost of units.

Interestingly I'm about to be someone who intentionally doesn't follow the optimal pick everything route.

 

I've got 6 tyranid warriors and if I arm them with guns, I'll be putting 2 matching heavies on, rather than all 4. It doesn't feel or look right to me to have a squad of 6 guys with 4 heavy weapons. I also suspect it won't stay that way in the future.

[Arbedark]

15 hours ago, jaxom said:

I don't want to make assumptions; would you be okay with a stable ruleset with about 10-20% variance of "power"? Like everyone knows one or two armies have a bit of an edge, but it's not so bad that a good plan and some good dice rolls can get over that edge?

 

It uses power level in regards to the core idea: a unit has one cost and any changes (like additional members) occur in metric intervals of that cost (3 people is 30, 6 people is 60, and 9 people is 90). What's different is the level of precision. We've gone from two significant figures to three significant figures. I think "points" has become shorthand for "balancing upgrade options by their points cost" rather than each upgrade being equal and balanced by their rules.

 

But PL broke that rule by having some upgrades that cost additional PL that weren't a multiple of the base unit cost.

I'd argue that the defining feature of PL was the lack of granularity (with the essentially 20 to 1 points to PL relationship that was established) and relative oversimplification of list building that brought with it. The situation in 10th still has nuance - if you have a 1960 point list and the unit you want costs 45 points, you can't fit it in. With PL that would (most likely) be 98 PL and 2 PL, fitting in a 100 PL list nicely. So to me the granularity offered by points, even under the current 'simplified not simple' situation is different enough than PL that we shouldn't try and be reductionist in how we look at it.

 

I also stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with free wargear, which I stand by - as long as the options are balanced correctly, which they clearly aren't at the moment. There is nothing that states that a Heavy Bolter must be cheaper than a Lascannon, only previous convention that it was.

 

14 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

It is Power Levels renamed to Points. That kind of "technically I didn't do the thing I did" doesn't even work when little kids try it. It is insulting to everyone's intelligence, including yours, to pretend otherwise.

 

For the OPR thing, fair enough. My assessment is based on the way they bill themselves, and the way GW chose to bill 10th, and the similarities between the two. It is possible that Games Workshop came up with all of this stuff independently though.

 

 

That is nice, but not part of my post.

 

This sort of response is why I only reacted to your original post instead of taking the time to write a reply, and I shouldn't have let you drag me into being dogpiled on by a bunch of online bullies who just want to feel intellectually superior.

 

13 hours ago, jaxom said:

Question because writing doesn’t have tone and I just had to explain what significant figures were today… is this sarcasm?

 

With respect, you haven't had to explain what significant figures were today (assuming you mean your previous post to me on this thread), we just disagree that whether something has an order of magnitude more granularity is enough of a distinction or not.

 

12 hours ago, JayJapanB said:

Would you just use it less then? 

An example:
If a new player buys a Baneblade, and wants to build it like any one of the pictures on the box.
They then show it to an experienced player who tells them they're missing out on 6 big guns by not building it like a battleship. (quad sponson)

I don't really think that's a reasonable choice to give a player.

 

There's a difference between "sub optimal" and "feels bad".

 

This is a great example of how they've implemented free wargear poorly, but again not an actual indictment of the concept of free wargear in the first place. A vs B is fine, but Nothing vs A vs B is an issue unless both A and B have appreciable and meaningful downsides, which are balanced against the Nothing option.

 

11 hours ago, crimsondave said:

There is, literally, not one thing you said in this post that is factually accurate.

 

Yes there is. Now what? Do we roll-off to see who's right?

 

9 hours ago, Rain said:

Looks like someone didn’t cover isomorphisms in math class 

 

Isomorphisms require 1-to-1 mapping. 9th PL to 10th Points is 1-to-many mapping (2 PL could map to 40 points, or 45 points, etc.). Maybe you were the one who didn't cover isomorphisms in class?

 

8 hours ago, crimsondave said:

If you don’t think of it in terms of numbers it’s an easier concept.

 

You can paint “Lamborghini” on your Corolla but you’re still driving a Toyota.

 

But the logic that is being espoused is that because 9th PL and 10th Points share some basic features they are equivalent. So surely as both a Lambo and a Corolla have 4 wheels and an engine they are the same thing? Or do you recognise that the whole thing is a false equivalency and like others in this thread have just used it as a thinly veiled excuse to be condescending to someone who disagrees with you?

 

1 hour ago, brother_b said:

I respectfully disagree.

 

GSC acolytes can have an autopistol or habdflamer. The handflamer is always better.
 

This has created a strange situation where GW has invalidated actual plastic components in their acolyte kit. Nobody that wants the best option should ever pick autopistol.

 

Free wargear systems would be great if all options mattered. They just don’t, and points for the premium option was a good solution.

 

Thats gone now, and while we technically have points, it’s basically just power  level when you come down to it.

 

The only advantage of the new “points” versus PL is that the new points options allow more granularity in trying to balance the cost of units.

 

I agree that this is a great example of why the currently implemented system is flawed. Auto Pistols vs Hand Flamers absolutely should be a meaningful choice on Acolytes, and they dropped by ball hard by making Hand Flamers simply Auto Pistols but better.

 

I also agree with your final statement, but I think that the granularity is the core differentiator between PL and Points.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Arbedark

[Dont-Be-Haten]

4 hours ago, Nephaston said:

I only agree in the regard that I don't think the 40k rules team is capable of balancing it in a timely and reasonable fashion.

That said, unless they have serious crossover, it should not matter how many systems they have; AoS being good at balance sadly has and should have no impact on the 40k rules team beyond perhaps borrowing good ideas. Same with Warcry, Underworlds, 30k, Kill Team, TOW, etc.

 

Now of course I can not be certain that GW hasn't severly mismanaged that aspect of their internal work, but at this point it wouldn't surprise me.

Ive been reading through 3rd editions ruleset. You can see straight copy and paste ideas from the AoS core ruleset put into 40k.

 

These are just my opinion pieces of course. But I would rather have fewer complete range armies with add ons, than constant refreshes and model bloat for older established armies. LoV, DG, Ksons, World Eaters, Harelquins...all have fewer than half the number of options several other armies have, but are considered full armies. These make established allies, not whole armies. 

 

That in and of itself, means balance is going to be difficult to achieve without more rules bloat etc.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Arbedark said:

With respect, you haven't had to explain what significant figures were today (assuming you mean your previous post to me on this thread),

Nope, it was at work.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

8 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

But don't you understand that more balance and streamlining are not the same thing? This edition is supposed to be more "streamlined" but has less balance than 9th did with all the bonkers codexes and mono bonuses.

 

Having a bolt pistol cost the same as a plasma pistol is "streamlining" but the plasma pistol is 100% better and is not balanced.

 

 

All I did was read their article, and said those rules suck, and the data came out and supported that yes, those rules suck. They made the slowest army even slower, made them less lethal (which was something every army got a taste of, reducing AP around the bored), and became far less durable with losing DR and toughness going up on alot of stuff for other factions. It's not that they didn't do what I wanted, it's that they made them worse at every facet of the game. I also have other armies (chaos daemons and older tau and tyranids). It was just so glaringly bad at the preview I'm surprised that GW read the DG/LoV rules and then looked at the Eldar rules and went "yeah these guys are balanced".

 

I'm upset with GW for lots of things. Terrible balance between faction's, half baked to no play testing, having to constantly update their game because they fudge it up so bad the first time, won't go digital in 2023 which would actually help them constantly having to tweak their poor rules. I'm not even talking full digital, print the books for those that want it but offer digital too. Forcing power levels on players. DG sucking is just the cherry on top for me.

 

This balance slate is a step in the right direction but with all the indexes coming out at once you would have thought you wouldn't have armies in the 30%'s and 70%'s. I'm rooting for GW and I want the game to be good, it's the only reason I'm still hanging around. You won't see me posting in the price increase threads complaining about GW because the price of everything is going up. But when they put in subpar effort into the game and the game becomes actively worse, that's an issue for me.

You seem to not understand that the entirety of this game, is not about competitive play. In narrative games, in regular games with friends, at anytime outside of competition, the optimal piece of war gear does not matter, because the game does not matter. Your entire mindset is submerged in all things competition. 
 

Once again, your expectations are off and you refuse to argue or respond to that point. You are comparing the end of 9th, a phase of an edition that had numerous rules releases with much more thought and purpose put into them, with rules designed to give everyone a baseline to just begin playing a new edition with. Because I don’t think you’re grasping it yet, I’ll reiterate.. maybe this point in time, at the very beginning of an edition (an edition reset at that), isn’t the best time to try to engage in competitive games in this hobby.. That’s not what indexes are designed for. No one sold you on 10th edition indexes being absolutely optimized and balanced for competitive gaming. So your “win rate” argument is irrelevant. Current 10th edition maybe should be considered in terms of 8th edition and not 9th edition because that is the last edition where we had an index reset. 

Death Guard are fine outside of competitive play. All index armies are. In the vacuum that is the online 40k social/forum community, where competitive is ever emphasized, that is the only place issues exist. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, Dont-Be-Haten said:

Ive been reading through 3rd editions ruleset. You can see straight copy and paste ideas from the AoS core ruleset put into 40k.

 

These are just my opinion pieces of course. But I would rather have fewer complete range armies with add ons, than constant refreshes and model bloat for older established armies. LoV, DG, Ksons, World Eaters, Harelquins...all have fewer than half the number of options several other armies have, but are considered full armies. These make established allies, not whole armies. 

 

That in and of itself, means balance is going to be difficult to achieve without more rules bloat etc.

I actually agree with this… I would have been happier if Death Guard were simply reintegrated into the Chaos Codex and had a single page going over Plague Marines (a catch all term that includes just about any unit such as Terminators), some Legion-specific weaponry and war gear and call it a day. By making subfactions, GW has essentially bogged down their own machine and made things like errata and releases even slower or less thought out. They’ve essentially worked themselves into a corner and I don’t think they can just hand wave it all away… 

 

… I mean, they can but then people would be upset that a lot of their models no longer have rules, which we know GW only reserves for FW models. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

12 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

You seem to not understand that the entirety of this game, is not about competitive play. In narrative games, in regular games with friends, at anytime outside of competition, the optimal piece of war gear does not matter, because the game does not matter. Your entire mindset is submerged in all things competition. 
 

Once again, your expectations are off and you refuse to argue or respond to that point. You are comparing the end of 9th, a phase of an edition that had numerous rules releases with much more thought and purpose put into them, with rules designed to give everyone a baseline to just begin playing a new edition with. Because I don’t think you’re grasping it yet, I’ll reiterate.. maybe this point in time, at the very beginning of an edition (an edition reset at that), isn’t the best time to try to engage in competitive games in this hobby.. That’s not what indexes are designed for. No one sold you on 10th edition indexes being absolutely optimized and balanced for competitive gaming. So your “win rate” argument is irrelevant. Current 10th edition maybe should be considered in terms of 8th edition and not 9th edition because that is the last edition where we had an index reset. 

Death Guard are fine outside of competitive play. All index armies are. In the vacuum that is the online 40k social/forum community, where competitive is ever emphasized, that is the only place issues exist. 

 

At this point you are derailing the thread even further. I've already stated I don't even go to competitions and I play with my brothers and friends. But we like to play a fun, engaging and competitive game that comes down to decisions in the final turns, not being tabled in turn 3. It's a billion dollar company with hundreds of millions in sales yearly and everything done years in advance. Other players and I are allowed to expect a premium game if we are paying a premium price. Sorry you like unbalanced non competitive games. Winning or losing a close game is alot more fun than steam rolling or getting steam rolled. I'm getting what you're saying I just don't agree with any of it. And from the looks of it less people seem to agree with what you are saying than what I am. Just move on dude.

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Arbedark said:

This sort of response is why I only reacted to your original post instead of taking the time to write a reply, and I shouldn't have let you drag me into being dogpiled on by a bunch of online bullies who just want to feel intellectually superior.

 

Maybe take responsibility for choosing to engage in the first place. Nobody dragged you anywhere.

 

3 hours ago, Arbedark said:

I think that the granularity is the core differentiator between PL and Points.

 

This is the crux, then? The current system has more digits in the numbers, so it is not Power Level?

[caladancid]

26 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Maybe take responsibility for choosing to engage in the first place. Nobody dragged you anywhere.

 

 

This is the crux, then? The current system has more digits in the numbers, so it is not Power Level?

 

I thought we had already been over this. As @Arbedark (and Johnnie Cochran) said, "If you can't divide by 5 you must acquit!"

 

Also following on the latest, it really isn't GW's fault that the community after 20 years associates a value with certain wargear. If we all think that a heavy bolter is worth less than a lascannon thats on us, not them.

 

On a serious note that would fix all of our issues, if we just accept whatever GW does and roll with it. Can't be mad with no expectations.

 

edit

 

I actually have to come back and say this. Nobody is being bullied in this thread. This place is an online discussion board full of people who are very invested, in many ways, in this game. Its actually the best behaved forum I've seen. Just because people have and express strong opinions in a variety of ways (including sarcasm) absolutely does not mean someone is being bullied. That is just wrong. Participate in a robust conversation or don't, defend your ideas or don't, but don't try to reduce this to that level.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by caladancid

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

You seem to not understand that the entirety of this game, is not about competitive play. In narrative games, in regular games with friends, at anytime outside of competition, the optimal piece of war gear does not matter, because the game does not matter. Your entire mindset is submerged in all things competition. 

 

Wanting things to be relatively balanced does not mean it's about competitive play.

 

Further, this is, ultimately, a game between two or more people where there are in-game objectives (not literally the objective markers, but goals/aims/purpose) for each side to "win" the battle; that goal can vary greatly depending on the venue the players are in (ie, narrative, casual, tournament, etc) but that in-game conflict is the driver - and if units are substantially out of whack, then it has an impact on the quality of play, in all theatres.

 

If a unit is a significant outlier in terms of performance (over- or under-powered) then it will impact satisfaction in play for different reasons. For competitive play, a unit underperforming is disappointing and feels not good to use, while an overpowered unit feels unsatisfying and cheap to use or just horrible to play against. For narrative games, if a unit of Wraithguard utterly dominates everything the Tyranids can throw at them it feels bad; and if Fire Dragonsfail to perform their role at least decently well then they feel disconnected from their loreful kind of position in the roster - a premier anti-tank unit failing to impact vehicles significantly feels...off, even in narrative (NB: this is an example of something, I'm not arguing whether they are or aren't right now!).

 

While some of this can be adjusted by the players on an ad hoc basis, it's also difficult to do in various formats: narrative play is probably done between close acquaintances and so a simple points adjustment might be easy, but making the Fire Dragons better into vehicles might be more difficult than just changing some points which becomes a more involved debate with potentially no resolution; similarly for casual/PUG style games, balancing an overperforming unit like (pre-nerf) Wraithguard on the fly pre-game isn't going to be an easy adjustment to make, especially if these are very casual players who might just want to be fielding their cool units - Wraith units are cool, and someone might have a Wraith-heavy collection that is now just OP, but now they're forced into trying to resolve the imbalance or be see as gamey/hypercompetitive/beardy, whatever, just because they want to use their cool unit; and of course the follow on argument of "just don't use OP stuff" is still a problem the other way around since casual players aren't necessarily building OP armies, but may very well bring OP stuff just because they like it.

 

Simply, wanting better balance isn't a competitive issue, it affects all forms of the game.

[Blindhamster]

I’ve never played tournaments (not my cup of tea) and tend to like more narrative focused games. but always hope for a game to be enjoyable for all players, which typically means I want it to be balanced as a game where you feel like you have a chance is more enjoyable.

 

incidentally I also have always used points and hated power levels - because they straight up aren’t fair on any unit that has options assuming people don’t just always build for the “best” options (and if you assume they always do, there simply aren’t options. Just wasted sprue space)

[CCE1981]

Anyone else notice that Devastating Wounds buff vs units with attached Leaders.  Knock a unit down to only a few models left and pump out those Devastating Wounds to delete the Character without any saves since Devastating Wounds are held until AFTER normal wounds p the new rules.

[Blindhamster]

6 minutes ago, CCE1981 said:

Anyone else notice that Devastating Wounds buff vs units with attached Leaders.  Knock a unit down to only a few models left and pump out those Devastating Wounds to delete the Character without any saves since Devastating Wounds are held until AFTER normal wounds p the new rules.

thats a good catch. Bit of a weird one too tbh, Leaders already dont benefit from any direct defensive benefits they have till they're the last model standing and now they probably dont even when they are

[Blurf]

8 hours ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

You seem to not understand that the entirety of this game, is not about competitive play. In narrative games, in regular games with friends, at anytime outside of competition, the optimal piece of war gear does not matter, because the game does not matter. Your entire mindset is submerged in all things competition. 
 

Once again, your expectations are off and you refuse to argue or respond to that point. You are comparing the end of 9th, a phase of an edition that had numerous rules releases with much more thought and purpose put into them, with rules designed to give everyone a baseline to just begin playing a new edition with. Because I don’t think you’re grasping it yet, I’ll reiterate.. maybe this point in time, at the very beginning of an edition (an edition reset at that), isn’t the best time to try to engage in competitive games in this hobby.. That’s not what indexes are designed for. No one sold you on 10th edition indexes being absolutely optimized and balanced for competitive gaming. So your “win rate” argument is irrelevant. Current 10th edition maybe should be considered in terms of 8th edition and not 9th edition because that is the last edition where we had an index reset. 

Death Guard are fine outside of competitive play. All index armies are. In the vacuum that is the online 40k social/forum community, where competitive is ever emphasized, that is the only place issues exist. 

I agree that narrative games and games with your friends do not matter.

 

This is a thread about a balance patch to competitive play in Warhammer 40k. Why are you here if you're not interested in participating in a discussion about competitive balance in 40k?

 

This is like going to a Porsche Owner's Club forum to sell people on commuting by bicycle. You are very much not in the right place.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

6 hours ago, Kallas said:

 

Snip

 

Right... and *that* (IMO) is what codexes are for.. not indexes.

I never said the game should not be balanced and everyone who participates in this hobby should just deal with that.. I am talking about expectations for indexes that every single one of us know is temporary. I think asking for perfectly balanced indexes from GW when we know they are working on producing more permanent rules is absolutely ridiculous. I also think attempting to make competitive conclusions from indexes is equally ridiculous. 

If codexes wind up being this bad, I don't have an issue at all with the community raging at GW from there. That is completely warranted. Rules you didn't pay for that just allows us to play? Come on now.. we're now just being ridiculous.

 

54 minutes ago, Blurf said:

I agree that narrative games and games with your friends do not matter.

 

This is a thread about a balance patch to competitive play in Warhammer 40k. Why are you here if you're not interested in participating in a discussion about competitive balance in 40k?

 

This is like going to a Porsche Owner's Club forum to sell people on commuting by bicycle. You are very much not in the right place.

 

You're free to read back and see how the conversation went there...

Since you like comparisons, porcshes are designed and marketed as sports cars.. 40k is not designed and marketed as a competitive tabletop game that is completely balanced. While I think it's a crock of  GW tries to claim they are a model company and not a gaming company, that is their claim. But please.. continue you on with your short-sighted expectations of what they need to be doing as a company. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Bloody Legionnaire

[Blindhamster]

11 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

I never said the game should not be balanced and everyone who participates in this hobby should just deal with that.. I am talking about expectations for indexes that every single one of us know is temporary. I think asking for perfectly balanced indexes from GW when we know they are working on producing more permanent rules is absolutely ridiculous. I also thing attempting to make competitive conclusions from indexes is equally ridiculous. 

Too be fair, the indexes should have been broadly well balanced against eachother, considering for at least half of them, they’ll spend well over a year in use - two in some cases potentially.

[DuskRaider]

48 minutes ago, Blurf said:

I agree that narrative games and games with your friends do not matter.

 

This is a thread about a balance patch to competitive play in Warhammer 40k. Why are you here if you're not interested in participating in a discussion about competitive balance in 40k?

 

This is like going to a Porsche Owner's Club forum to sell people on commuting by bicycle. You are very much not in the right place.

What a brain dead take. Even those of us who prefer narrative can and are angry when the rules don’t match the fluff. Probably more so in some cases than the tourney people. 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

Just now, Blindhamster said:

Too be fair, the indexes should have been broadly well balanced against eachother, considering for at least half of them, they’ll spend well over a year in use - two in some cases potentially.

 

I do think this is the most appropriate area for the "GW has too much going on" argument. I don't disagree with you. I'm not the originator, but someone else on B&C posted it appeared armies like DG and some of the other poor(er) performing index armies were probably written first and then a shift changed in how GW wanted the rest of the armies to play; I think it's a plausible reason for how we ended up here. Then with all of the other games they were trying to get pushed out (cough, 30k 2.0) they for one reason or another didn't go back to change anything. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

42 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

Right... and *that* (IMO) is what codexes are for.. not indexes.

I never said the game should not be balanced and everyone who participates in this hobby should just deal with that.. I am talking about expectations for indexes that every single one of us know is temporary. I think asking for perfectly balanced indexes from GW when we know they are working on producing more permanent rules is absolutely ridiculous. I also thing attempting to make competitive conclusions from indexes is equally ridiculous. 

If codexes wind up being this bad, I don't have an issue at all with the community raging at GW from there. That is completely warranted. Rules you didn't pay for that just allows us to play? Come on now.. we're now just being ridiculous.

 

The only reason the indexes are free is because they invalidated the previous codexes that were less than 3 years to a few months old because GW decided to change the rules that much between editions. That shouldn't mean that they are allowed to be subpar and half baked when it comes to balance. Nobody is asking for perfect, we just want as close as they can get to that 45-55% window. Having armies in the 70%'s and 30%'s is not healthy for the game (hence the balance slates and all the commentary about balance). 

 

But only 9 codexes are even coming out in the first year. The other 19ish faction's will still be using the indexes. And at that rate a 1/3 of the armies will be using the indexes for over 2 years, which is a majority of the 3 year edition cycle. What is wrong with wanting balanced indexes? Because at the codex snail speed, a majority of the edition will be played with indexes. Kind of makes the codex temporary for a lot of faction's and the index their main rules for the edition.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy

[tinpact]

At least as far as indexes being a stopgap - at the current rate they're releasing codexes, for a fair few armies their index may as well be their codex for this edition unless they do something like they did for AoS and publish supplements in White Dwarf.

 

We'll see soon how the Nids and Space Marine codexes turn out, but even if they are free, the quality of writing in the indexes doesn't inspire much hope.

 

Of course, if it does turn out the codexes are fine and you just have to pay for quality, I still can't see anyone with a late codex release feeling anything but spited. Cynically I wonder if that won't be the case - why buy a codex if your free rules can do the job, after all?

[Kallas]

16 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

Right... and *that* (IMO) is what codexes are for.. not indexes.

Says...who, and why?! This is such a strange take. Just because they're temporary - and considering that some Codexes last for only a couple of months at the end of the edition - they're ok to be unbalanced messes? Ridiculous.

 

Some factions are going to be using these Index rules for a long time, half of the edition for some of them. Is it fine for the state of these factions to be over/undertuned for this long just...because?!

 

28 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

asking for perfectly balanced

Where did people ask for "perfectly balanced" anything? People want reasonable balance where stuff isn't absolute garbage or insanely overpowered. Expecting this from Indexes is reasonable - sure it's free, but that doesn't mean quality should be a dumpster fire.

 

Again, balance is not a purely competitive issue, despite your claims - it affects almost everyone (in varying ways and to varying degrees, but it does still affect peoples' enjoyment of the game) and having poor balance for potentially a year/year and a half if their Codex release timeline is anything like previous editions (and we already know there will be plenty of Codexes waiting until at least late 2024). It's not a good state of affairs, regardless of the cost of the product (and bearing in mind that if GW is going to hold to the "model company not a games company" then the rules are a sales driver/loss leader; and they still play a large role in pushing sales overall, even if it's just maintaining interest in the hobby).

 

TL;DR, balance still matters.

[Plaguecaster]

47 minutes ago, Bloody Legionnaire said:

 

Right... and *that* (IMO) is what codexes are for.. not indexes.

I never said the game should not be balanced and everyone who participates in this hobby should just deal with that.. I am talking about expectations for indexes that every single one of us know is temporary. I think asking for perfectly balanced indexes from GW when we know they are working on producing more permanent rules is absolutely ridiculous. I also think attempting to make competitive conclusions from indexes is equally ridiculous. 

If codexes wind up being this bad, I don't have an issue at all with the community raging at GW from there. That is completely warranted. Rules you didn't pay for that just allows us to play? Come on now.. 

Yes the index are temporarily  but only for some 

For those poor unfortunate factions at the end of the the codex release schedule those index are their only form of rules for a very long period of time so these index are their main rules for a good portion of the edition. Will be very likely how previous editions have been dealt with it being very likely some factions will only get a codex for a couple of months and then have it invalidated again by a new edition again so it's completely reasonable to expect GW actually puts some damn effort into making them balanced for factions as not everyone is as blessed to be loyalist marines or the poster enemy of the edition ao won't be getting any codex to help them for a good number of months or more as we all know how slow gw loves to drag out codex releases.

 

 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

7 minutes ago, Kallas said:

Snip

 

*Sigh*

The only data we have is from tournaments/competitions; where unfair advantages are leveraged and anecdotal evidence from anyone who decides to cry about their experiences not meeting their expectations. 

How many people in this hobby do you think actually take the time to participate in online forum shenanigans? Those that do become partakers in the echo chamber that the online community develops and takes that back with them to their local community. And the cycle just continues. 

What data do you have to back up the claim that the game is an "unbalanced mess" other than that which exists in a competitive wrapped vacuum? 
 

[Bloody Legionnaire]

4 minutes ago, Plaguecaster said:

Yes the index are temporarily  but only for some 

For those poor unfortunate factions at the end of the the codex release schedule those index are their only form of rules for a very long period of time so these index are their main rules for a good portion of the edition. Will be very likely how previous editions have been dealt with it being very likely some factions will only get a codex for a couple of months and then have it invalidated again by a new edition again so it's completely reasonable to expect GW actually puts some damn effort into making them balanced for factions as not everyone is as blessed to be loyalist marines or the poster enemy of the edition ao won't be getting any codex to help them for a good number of months or more as we all know how slow gw loves to drag out codex releases.

 

 

 

I started in 6th edition with a 5th edition Space Wolves codex and didn't get updated rules until 3 months into 7th, and I think if I'm remembering correctly there were plenty of factions that had it worse than SWs did. There was no where near the levels of updates and support then that GW is providing now. 

You're posting like you can't play your army at all.. you can. It doesn't met your preferred level, but there is much less variance with an index reset than we've seen previously. 

Hopefully things change with codexes.

I do disagree, I don't think indexes need that much effort put into them to satisfy some of the desires we see posted about on this forum.