Goatboy right here with ideas in regards to the GW’s newest 40 meta information and what all of it means.

This week GW began up with some Meta watch goodness on the 40k facet of issues with a breakdown of the armies and their “win” share.  I’m completely happy about this as once more it reveals GW does care in regards to the equity of the sport.  It’s good to suppose that possibly I get to the desk and have an opportunity with no matter military I take.

What About Player Skill?

My situation appears to be whereas simply taking the wins and losses is nice – however what about any metric based mostly on participant ability?  I do know that could be a tougher factor to evaluate however a brand new participant taking the very best checklist (possibly bar preliminary guide launch Nids) isn’t going to win numerous their video games.  There is numerous layers of nuance to be sure you are paying sufficient consideration to the scoring points of the sport {that a} new participant will most definitely neglect.   Heck even older gamers like myself neglect on a regular basis too.

So how on earth will we actually get a sense or a spot the place we all know a military is likely to be too good?  I keep in mind that GW was speaking about constructing a “war room” of match winners to assist information their FAQ’s/Seasons/Etc.  I haven’t heard if that’s nonetheless a factor or are they ready to get all of it collectively.  Like in the event you ask numerous the higher gamers all of them have ideas on what’s the greatest military.  Heck – in the event you observe what a participant is taking part in and it is among the “best” military and it wrecks everybody at an enormous occasion – it is likely to be too good.

What is a Good Win Rate?

Which once more leads me to begin to marvel what’s the optimum win charge?  Is 50% actually the easiest way to evaluate a military whether it is in the proper place?  If you see Ad Mech it’s actually low however is that extra so a bunch of loyal metallic heads who aren’t the very best taking part in it on a regular basis?  Is it actually a algorithm that don’t work to effectively or is it simply the entire – early guide with dangerous secondaries situation? What actually makes the military actually dangerous past simply crap guidelines?

It once more factors me in the direction of the concept of attempting to really observe participant  ability in some significant method past simply ITC or no matter teams rating they need to be.  I don’t even know if that’s actually price it for GW too.  I have a look at how AOS seems like there’s a far more above board controlling group for FAQ’s and testing that feels a bit disregarded on the 40k facet of issues however once more – its laborious to essentially grasp ahold of and be like – this must be higher so my fashions are good once more.

ninth Edition’s time could also be virtually up…

Does ninth’s Meta Even Matter

And heck this all  may very well be moot to debate as we wait to see if tenth goes to wreck the world and begin over once more.  Overall from the info there’s a few situation nonetheless floating within the sport on a primary degree – issues that dataslate replace won’t repair sufficient.  We’ll simply have to attend and discover out when the following quarter replace is launched.

The Road to Balance

Here are the issues at a primary degree I might do to repair up the sport.  These aren’t pinpoint ideas on particular armies (with out large datasheet rewrites it’s laborious to “fix” armies with too good of models past hoping factors evens it out) however as an alternative broader ideas to assist the sport out.

1. Remove the flexibility to take a number of secondary missions from your personal armies part within the Nephilim replace.  This might be the largest think about letting 2 armies run away with scoring within the sport and leaves their “rules” alone to see if the military is definitely good or simply the best way they rating the sport too good.
2. Update Missions to have a Secondary choice each armies must play for as a part of the three pack of Secondaries.
3. Change all Shadow Operations secondaries to permit for scoring on the finish of the sport if the participant went second.

Those 3 issues would simplify a few of the video games in that there are actually solely “2” missions which can be totally different from one another for the spherical.  It eliminates these with armies which have 2 oops I get 15 secondary factors to simple.  It forces a battle over one of many secondaries – particularly in the event you construct into it that it’s one thing each armies have to have interaction/work together to take care of.  It additionally permits some armies secondaries to have the ability to work all rounds of the sport as an alternative of hoping to go first to get your 12-15 factors wanted.

These options aren’t good and does take some transforming of the missions however I really feel it could be a easy sufficient set of modifications that hits all of the armies directly as an alternative of simply pinpoint modifications and hoping it brings a military in line.

What are your ideas? Do you suppose this might work effectively sufficient and let the sport sync up much more?  Is it price it to vary it up?

Thomas Reidy, aka Goatboy, the ever-evil member of BoLS. I do arts, play 40k, and even paint numerous stuff. I’ve been taking part in Warhammer 40K because the Nineteen Nineties, and have received a number of nationwide occasions together with Adepticon and GW GTs. I’ve been writing for BoLS for 15 years. Look at my Instagram to see what I’m engaged on – or engaged on for somebody. I’m at all times doing one thing interest associated.

Read the Comments (0)