new balance data slate update this Thursday

[Alternis]

36 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

 

That's just not accurate though - the first 10th Ed "patch" changed the Aelderi faction ability fairly significantly and previous dataslates have amended datasheets, faction abilities and strategems as well as points. In 9th they also changed the entire indirect rules (though regrettably didn't learn their lesson for 10th) so I don't think they are trying to change things simply via points (though as it's the easiest dial to change they'd prefer that to an alternative.)

 

 

Fingers crossed it’s a comprehensive fix across the board. 
 

Being a Blood Angels/Tyranids/Aeldari main since 5th Ed (3rd Ed for Nids) I'm not a fan of how they handled BA, the insta win Aeldari feel, and I actually veer away from playing my Aeldari because it’s not fun when you curb stomp your opponent with no actual difficulty involved. 
 

and BA are pretty much unplayable unless I’m spamming tanks and ranged units enmasse, it just doesn’t feel “blood angels” to me.

 

There’s a lot of tweaks that need to happen and I pray to the god emperor we get some really good balances

[Madao]

6 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The sheer brutal negativity in this thread is exhausting. We have the first codex in the wild and the first balance update of the entire edition isn't even out and you're writing off the whole thing? I sat on this reply for like an hour, debating whether I should engage or not. In the end I had to.

 

A balance update so quick is an amazing thing. I'd personally prefer one to coincide with every codex release of 10th, and not just every 3 months. More updates are objectively good. Less frequent updates or none at all remind me of the old days where you'd have a codex out of date for 2 editions and just had to suffer while a brand new codex roflstomped everything else including other newer codexes.

 

We are not complaining about the lack of balancing actions. We are complaining about their need in the first place and the reasons they are needed. AoO 9th was quite good in terms of rules and balance. It had some issues (e.g. morale), but was quite decent and fun to play.

10th was advertised as better than 9th, simpler and more fun to play. It turned out to be false, as the opening state (the one they were supposedly been working on for 3 years) was just an unfunny joke and looked like rushed product without any QA. And I am not talking about some minor balance issues,  but the existence of inherently broken factions/datasheets along with inherently weak factions/datasheets, which were spotted by community day 1 after the indexes were published. What does it say about their processes? What does it say about their respect for the customers? They had a perfect opportunity to make things right with the full reset and they have ruined it. This is why there is so much salt about this edition. And this is why I think it might be the last edition for many people.

GW could release buggy, unbalanced product when they were the only player on the market. But times have changed and now only their IP is keeping them above the competitors (there are nicer minis on the market in more reasonable prices and there are more player-friendly rulesets as well).

[caladancid]

6 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

 

You can't stand under an umbrella crying and tell me its raining.

 

I don't know what this means, but I do play Votann so I am definitely crying. 

[phandaal]

2 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

I don't know what this means, but I do play Votann so I am definitely crying. 

 

I think it is a line from an Alanis Morissette song.

[Shield-Captain]

At the risk of beating a skeletal horse into bone dust, I do think that a lot of the balance issues (especially with my Eldar) could be mitigated by having more granularity in the points costs of things. 
 

A war walker with two shuriken cannons cost as much as one with two bright lances but the latter gets much more mileage out of the detachment rule than the former. Also in this vehicle meta () one is a no brainer. 
 

 

[OttoVonAwesome]

5 hours ago, Shield-Captain said:

At the risk of beating a skeletal horse into bone dust, I do think that a lot of the balance issues (especially with my Eldar) could be mitigated by having more granularity in the points costs of things. 
 

A war walker with two shuriken cannons cost as much as one with two bright lances but the latter gets much more mileage out of the detachment rule than the former. Also in this vehicle meta () one is a no brainer. 
 

 

Yeah you can't price every gun at 5 points and expect it to balance out wich is exactly what they have done.

[SirJyo]

At risk of repeating, black Templar vehicles cost more than normal vehicles just because you have the option to take a multi melta whether you take it or not.

In righteous crusaders detachment specifically.

The only equipment cost difference from the space marine main dex that I know about.

 

[Doghouse]

So with the new three codex known, being Space Marines, Ad Mech and Necrons and how a lot of armies are vastly underperforming or overperforming I am wondering what changes can be made given that at least these three have probably gone to print and are set in stone prior to seeing the tournament scene feedback.

 

I'm wondering if it was the case that the current Index represent where the Dev team thought each Codex should be before the official release of each with a few added bells and whistles added in the books. And does this mean that because of this the first few Codex releases could end up suffering from the most changes over much later prints of other late edition Codex? Have they wildly failed to predict how the game meta would be meaning we see potentially four, five or more getting the errata treatment in the same way the Votann did in 9th?

 

I'm interested to see how this starts to play out tomorrow.

[Sea Creature]

Supposedly the codices have a QR code to get points updates.

[SirJyo]

Biggest new update I'm hoping for is all melta and melta-equivalent weapons to have anti-vehicle 4+

Meltas are garbage and this would make them fulfil their purpose better and help with the tank meta. Makes a lot of troops viable again.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

Founded in Twitter. Not mine

[Sea Creature]

I knew it!!!

[Cpt_Reaper]

I have a question for everyone posting what they hope the update will include:

 

Have you sent that suggestion into the FAQ/Errata team? Via this email address -> 40kFAQ@gwplc.com

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 9/4/2023 at 9:40 AM, Redcomet said:

See these as hotfixes for video games.

I prefer my game developers just get it right the first time and only need to make minimal minor hot fixes…not screw the pooch, and have to alter the meta, screwing the pooch in a whole new way, wash, rinse, repeat for 3 years

[Kastor Krieg]

13 hours ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

I think the issue here is the word 'known'. It's difficult to say for certain they are the same person.

Also, what a sad existence that would be, to every day log into a website where everyone dislikes you and you are an object of continuous ridicule, a website you have publicly stated you have no wish to ever return to, and would look like an absolute fool were you to continue to do so while pretending not to.

Surely, no one would be that pathetic?

And yet.



:D

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

On 9/4/2023 at 9:49 AM, Joe said:

Probably not? They've got no data to go off of for Tyranids right now, and even under the index they were in the comfortable spot at 51%.

 

This makes me nervous.  The last time CSM had a %50ish winrate they were nerfed.

[andrewbioform]

On 9/4/2023 at 4:49 PM, Joe said:

Probably not? They've got no data to go off of for Tyranids right now, and even under the index they were in the comfortable spot at 51%.

 

i beg them to fix deathguard im tired of them sitting on my shelves.... Maybe next edition Morty

[Rain]

31 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

And yet.



:D

It’s like JFK, or Epstein. We “don’t really know” but come on 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, SirJyo said:

Biggest new update I'm hoping for is all melta and melta-equivalent weapons to have anti-vehicle 4+

Meltas are garbage and this would make them fulfil their purpose better and help with the tank meta. Makes a lot of troops viable again.

And would basically put us back where we started  back in 9th with vehicles being super easy to kill…

[Sea Creature]

Fingers crossed, not that hopeful though to be honest. A pleasant surprise would be nice.

[Blurf]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And would basically put us back where we started  back in 9th with vehicles being super easy to kill…

Just give it to sisters, then.

Pretty sure we're the only Imperial army that doesn't have a gun better than a multimelta in the entire arsenal.

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

And would basically put us back where we started  back in 9th with vehicles being super easy to kill…

Agreed, we don't need them too easy to kill.

A better option is just increasing the Damage stat (whether vs veh or everything.)

Premise: A Melta 'should' be able to one shot a Rhino but not necessarily bigger vehicles. 

Currently Melta range Marine vs Rhino = 1 shot x 0.66 hits x 0.5 wounds x 0 save = 33% chance of 3-8 damage.

Now increasing Melta to 4 means 33% chance of 5-10 damage.

Still living in hope of that last 6 roll, but not impossible (kill rate ~5%). 

 

If you pay for a squad of Melta dudes with 4 Melta and get them in range you can reliably kill one Rhino.

Nothing unfair with that.

 

But all that is irrelevant because I am with the team who believe this upcoming 'fix' won't be one.

Happy to be wrong.

 

 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

Maybe they should treat vehicles as actual vehicles and not monstrous creatures… that would solve a lot or at least make them unique. Then again, it seems people prefer simplicity over immersion more these days…

[chapter master 454]

I feel the issue lies within the fact strength on a lot of weapons is fairly anemic versus what they face. the Fact basic melta doesn't have a single 50/50 wound rate against standard tanks with T10 is just poor showing. A basic melta gun should be something of a credible issue for me to get close to with lighter vehicles and should make me concerned for injured heavier duty gear but when you get 1 shot, that even on god rolls does 8 damage max isn't making me concerned mainly because the wound rate just completely murders it along with the fact a lot of tanks are starting to get those critical 6+ saves against them because getting cover in this edition is just a joke...
"Brother Joe, just shuffle partly behind the building we are next to, thus we will all benefit from it"

 

It does make determining it quick but quick in a bad way: we are checking most cases in reverse; "do I NOT have cover"

 

Again, lots of worms but my main issue is factions seem to have a lot of pigeon holing for anti-tank options and I think they are not leveraging their dials well.
Quick reminder I am a Knight player so I ain't going to beat around the bush about it, there can be bias in my statements not just because I love playing my knights but I am a historic lover of armoured might in many forms, even eldar grav tanks are interesting to me.

Wound rolls are very common to sit within a very specific bracket when we talk about it, that is the middle 3: 3+, 4+ and 5+. Now these are all functionally fine however what the issue is that I don't think the rules team ever talked very well about what should be good against what.

Melta shows this. Strength 9 clearly has intent in it, the idea that these very portable and quite often easily accessed weapons shouldn't be just outright as good at anti-tank as any other anti-tank gun, which is what melta did in all editions in the past coupled with how strong infantry were. Strength 9 makes them far less consistent at being reliable damage sources especially with re-rolls. This actually has a fun element to it because the concept is that while they may not wound as regularly, they still retained incredible AP. This actually helps balance out one issue with meltas I feel many didn't think existed and again invalidated any other anti-tank strategies or options: they were always sitting on that 50/50 rate at worst. Now ofcourse that is a product of Toughness at the time and now we have uncapped toughness, but as it currently stands: I feel standard meltaguns being strength 9 is actually fine. For what can carry them, it isn't going to have a guardsman or marine take out 5-20x their points worth in model stats just with one shot and on a regular instance.

 

The issue lies...when we talk about heavier duty guns. Multi-Meltas being strength 9 isn't ok. I mean...you can talk about my knights and armigers running around with strength 12 thermals or a ghostkeels collider...but thats the thing, we are ether strength 9 or 12...ether we cut through it like butter and make tougher stuff sweat or nothing is worried at all. Where's the scaling?

Not to mention a lot of the anti-tank missiles factions have just aren't anymore. Kraks don't cut it and I feel something that should be leveraged in this case is maybe adding anti-tank 4+ to krak missiles (and their equals in other factions). These weapons often are characterised by not being good damage when compared to more high intensity offerings like meltas but right now...they offer nothing. Strength that wounds most tanks (and some monsters I believe) on 5+, low AP so doesn't even get through armour well (most will get a 5+ against it, 4+ more than not due to cover) and then you have to roll a wild D6 which can land big with 6 or just being a wet tissue for 1.

 

Randomness is nice to ensure that nothing becomes solved but when the maths on a lot of weapons is just so bad we don't bother, you ironically result in solved wargear options anyway. Anything with D6 in it for me always has to have something incredibly tempting to add to it to make it worth it.

Within Knights, the Las-Impulsor is a joke of a weapon with D6 shots for high intensity (aka: anti-big stuff profile). However with D6 shots, this thing swings wildly against all odds and never feels consistent. The issue being that I want a good volume of shots, ideally I would say 4 but I'll take 3 if I must but when the odds are 1-6...we all know when 1s come up and when 6s come up (that is, 1s on fresh targets, 6s on that one weak tank with only 1 wound left).

Meanwhile, Rapid-fire battle cannons are awesome. D6+3 already helps, blast then adds and this is due to adding a floor to what is supposed to be weapon meant for ripping apart masses of troops. Then factor in rapid fire D6+3, this thing just becomes far more consistent due to number of dice adding to balance averages AND the floor of 9-10 shots (because blast adding about 1-2), its hard to feel bad.

 

Not saying remove randomness, more saying...when it comes to anti-tank...D6 is just straight garbage 10/10 times unless the weapon has ether a billion shots OR the damage is just insane even if one gets through.

However even saying that, a Thermal Cannon vs. the lasimpulsor high-intensity is just everything in favour of the Thermal even outside of melta range and all because despite one weapon needing to vibe check 2 dice rolls, one gets 2D3 shots while the other has D6 (and the D6 one gets 4 damage flat).

 

I know knights don't need buffs but could we just change the Las-Impulsor is 4 shots with 4 damage...wouldn't even be that insane considering what other guns knights get.

 

hmm....I made another novel and rambled hard...meh...these topics are always fairly dense to talk about when talking about the factions that aren't outright running rough shot on others with all manner of methods to help improve, fix and sort them out.

 

Except for Death Guard and Votann...those boys need their own version of crossing the rubicon at this point!

[Sergeant Bastone]

On 9/4/2023 at 8:17 PM, DuskRaider said:

You’re probably right. They still don’t seem to realize that taking more subpar units doesn’t make them better, it just means that you have more subpar units on the board. 
 

I wouldn't mind being able to field more guardsmen