Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I see judgement tokens more as an attempt to speed up gameplay, it's an offensive buff that actually reduces dice rolling rather than adding to it; which if it is "written with 10th in mind", meaning we might see crop up in other areas.

I think you'd be wrong. It's an attempt to apply a buff to attacks.

I mean, that's literally what I said.

No, you said the intent was to speed up gameplay. I doubt that was on GW's agenda.

He said it was an attempt to speed up gameplay via an offensive buff. 'You're wrong, it's an attempt to apply an offensive buff' is a bit non-sequitur.

 kodos wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
If the intent was "We're not allowing Leagues until the full release", that's one thing, but if they're doing this when they weren't doing it for other OP books during the edition, I have to wonder at the sudden onset of cowardice.

they have done it with the Orks and Sisters Codex until the full release and in general all Factions that don't have a FAQ/Errata are not allowed

so until LoV get their full release we won't know if they are banned because of the rules

Did you read the screenshot that was posted? The phrasing indicated it wasn't due to the limited release - I was just giving that as a reason that could be acceptable.

I read it and it does not matter what the actual real reason behind is or if what is made public international is just there to get publicity

currently the Codex is not available to everyone, hence it would have been banned anyway, no matter how good or bad it is

that people take the chance to get a voice on the web to tell GW that they make a bad job, well everyone knows that GW suck as writing rules and the game is a mess (some people just ignore it for reasons)

if it is still banned after the full release, than we can talk about what this means for the game

 Dysartes wrote:

Whatever happened to German players liking a challenge?

If the intent was "We're not allowing Leagues until the full release", that's one thing, but if they're doing this when they weren't doing it for other OP books during the edition, I have to wonder at the sudden onset of cowardice.

It's not cowardice to not want to play against an overpowered codex. I think it's just a bridge too far; this codex is very overpowered, probably more than release Tyranids, and moreover doesn't have an established fanbase who would be hurt by not being included.

Hopefully GW will feel it a little; those jackasses in Nottingham need a bit of egg on their face for their atrocious design decisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

No, you said the intent was to speed up gameplay. I doubt that was on GW's agenda.

He said it was an attempt to speed up gameplay via an offensive buff. 'You're wrong, it's an attempt to apply an offensive buff' is a bit non-sequitur.

 kodos wrote:
I read it and it does not matter what the actual real reason behind is or if what is made public international is just there to get publicity

currently the Codex is not available to everyone, hence it would have been banned anyway, no matter how good or bad it is

that people take the chance to get a voice on the web to tell GW that they make a bad job, well everyone knows that GW suck as writing rules and the game is a mess (some people just ignore it for reasons)

if it is still banned after the full release, than we can talk about what this means for the game

Yeah this, the army you can say isn't officially released, so makes sense to say you can't play it at an event. Not bc its OP, if that was the case then Nids and Admech would have been banned.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Yeah this, the army you can say isn't officially released, so makes sense to say you can't play it at an event. Not bc its OP, if that was the case then Nids and Admech would have been banned.

Nids probably should have been banned on release too, but might as well start this policy of banning books now.

 Dysartes wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Whatever happened to German players liking a challenge?

If the intent was "We're not allowing Leagues until the full release", that's one thing, but if they're doing this when they weren't doing it for other OP books during the edition, I have to wonder at the sudden onset of cowardice.

Wisdom is not the same as cowerdice. Better late then never. Just becuse somthing wasent addressed in the past is no excuse to let it exist in perpetuity.

I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

I mean, I don't know Hecaton, I know you think the designers are dimwits who make stuff up by throwing things blind at a dart board, but look at the army as a whole:

Mechanic for wound on hit is an offensive buff with less dice rolling
They have fixed advance values for less rolling
Defensively they prevent rerolls on damage and wounds, which, you guessed it, is less rolling.

It definitely seems like one of their design goals was to make an army that plays faster via their buffs producing less rolling instead of more.

Removed - please dont spam the forum - ingtær.

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague 806816 11434477 wrote:
Banning AND abstaining from buying both need to be done

But why is it this army. There were other more broken armies, broken and edition breaking for months, but tournament orgenisers never claimed they want to ban specific armies. suddenly LoV arrive and they should be banned, and on top of that not played against.

Because we don't have a working time machine, so can't go back and do the same for previously released armies? More seriously, there's a lot less at stake banning LoV. You're not invalidating someone's collection because nobody has one yet. The army also isn't fully released yet, so waiting until all the models are available might make sense anyway.

That said, I believe this ban is actually fairly standard for the 3 TOs concerned as they often don't allow new Codices in their tournaments until the first FAQ has been released. So this may not even be a specific reaction to LoV and is being blown out of proportion.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah this, the army you can say isn't officially released, so makes sense to say you can't play it at an event. Not bc its OP, if that was the case then Nids and Admech would have been banned.

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Show me on the statement what was quoted where they're saying it was due to the release method, as opposed to the alleged power of the book. I'll wait.

To give in and do it for this book, and not, say, DE/AdMech/the-Harlequins-part-of-Eldar/Custodes/Tyranids - just off the top of my head - is rank cowardice. If the power is going to be the measure of when you ban something, have the intestinal fortitude to ban books for existing armies before you do it to new ones.

Or, y'know, encourage your players to "git gud".

Slipspace 806816 11434700 wrote:
Because we don't have a working time machine, so can't go back and do the same for previously released armies? More seriously, there's a lot less at stake banning LoV. You're not invalidating someone's collection because nobody has one yet. The army also isn't fully released yet, so waiting until all the models are available might make sense anyway.

That said, I believe this ban is actually fairly standard for the 3 TOs concerned as they often don't allow new Codices in their tournaments until the first FAQ has been released. So this may not even be a specific reaction to LoV and is being blown out of proportion.

ah so it comes down to school like stuff. who is popular with with the cool kids gets promotional treatment and who isn't gets the stick. From what I have read on the forums the argument is not about not letting people use their limited edition books, but not letting LoV be played till they are , as people like to call it fixed. Not to mention for the call to not play against people who bought LoV in general.

DE, Eldar or Tyranids were much worse to the meta, then what ever LoV can do right now. I don't remember any tournament orgs calling out or implementing faction bans. In fact the reaction to people calling out those armies on their rules, was commented with the trifecta of wait and see, wait till meta adjusts itself and GW FAQ will fix it. It is wrong that people who spend the same money on models are suppose to be punished. Within a single edition rules that go beyond codex or even core rules should not be changed. If people want to enact that, then it should be something kin to a statment that, if next edition X is a thing then it will not be allowed. This is like changing rules for olympic or world/euro champs events, when people not only had qualifires already, followed by a call out to not do those sports in general. It goes beyond stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

Store/club owners doesn't like them, has had bad expiriance with them in 5th ed etc. I had been to stores which disallow people from playing WWI and WWII historicals in the venue, because what tends to happens is 4/5th of the field playing some sort of german faction , because of better rules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

because a local community can do whatever they want
same as some ban Forgeworld/HH units or Names Characters

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

because a local community can do whatever they want
same as some ban Forgeworld/HH units or Names Characters

Sure they can, doesn't make it right, but I was genuinely asking why and not a answer like "Bc I said so". Thanks for adding nothing to the convo.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

Grudges for ward i suppose.

As for the banning of LoV, i believe these Lot does so until the faq is out, which is honestly a good move,for all factions.
But maybee i am mistaken.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

Store/club owners doesn't like them, has had bad expiriance with them in 5th ed etc. I had been to stores which disallow people from playing WWI and WWII historicals in the venue, because what tends to happens is 4/5th of the field playing some sort of german faction , because of better rules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

because a local community can do whatever they want
same as some ban Forgeworld/HH units or Names Characters

Sure they can, doesn't make it right, but I was genuinely asking why and not a answer like "Bc I said so". Thanks for adding nothing to the convo.

because this is the reason, a local community (1 store/club/event), banned them because they don't like them, nothing else

no wide "no GK allowed" in a whole region or event series, just the local community, because they can do it

I know also 3 local stores with bans on different armies/units which is only important if you play in that store and no reason needed

Karol wrote:

Slipspace 806816 11434700 wrote:
Because we don't have a working time machine, so can't go back and do the same for previously released armies? More seriously, there's a lot less at stake banning LoV. You're not invalidating someone's collection because nobody has one yet. The army also isn't fully released yet, so waiting until all the models are available might make sense anyway.

That said, I believe this ban is actually fairly standard for the 3 TOs concerned as they often don't allow new Codices in their tournaments until the first FAQ has been released. So this may not even be a specific reaction to LoV and is being blown out of proportion.

ah so it comes down to school like stuff.

No. This might shock you, but not everything can be compared to your experiences at school, or sport. Let's assume for a moment this is a different type of ban to what is apparently a standard "no FAQ, no play" rule for some German tournaments. What you're suggesting is continuing a bad policy because that's how we've always done it. According to your logic, we can't ban any army regardless of reason, because we haven't done it in the past. If someone thinks not banning powerful armies in the past was a mistake it's logical to correct that mistake rather than continuing to make the same mistake over and over.

Up until very recently, the tournament history of 9th edition has pretty much been stumbling from one dominating, broken Codex to the next. FAQs and balance dataslates would knock one army down, only to be replaced by another (or in the case of DE, the same Codex with different units). If TOs wish to break that cycle it seems like they'll have to do it themselves, because GW seem incapable of doing it. That seems like a better solution than just constantly complaining as the inevitable cycle continues.

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

because a local community can do whatever they want
same as some ban Forgeworld/HH units or Names Characters

Sure they can, doesn't make it right, but I was genuinely asking why and not a answer like "Bc I said so". Thanks for adding nothing to the convo.

because this is the reason, a local community (1 store/club/event), banned them because they don't like them, nothing else

no wide "no GK allowed" in a whole region or event series, just the local community, because they can do it

I know also 3 local stores with bans on different armies/units which is only important if you play in that store and no reason needed

And it wasn't your community nor did I ask you.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And it wasn't your community nor did I ask you.

neither is it Karols (yet you accept his answer that might be totally wrong either as reasonable), and you even don't know if it is a store or a club
but such things are normal here and given your reaction you expected that there is more behind it than just personal preference (which it is)

 Amishprn86 wrote:


And it wasn't your community nor did I ask you.

What do you want a list of ALL possible reasons? Because they range from stuff like don't like the faction as a whole, through paint esthetics, rules of the faction, then prior history etc. The "why" question is just wierd one, humans don't need a reason to do anything. they can do a thing for any reason you can imagine, and then some more, you can not. Using it as country or community wide argument, aka if there is a store/club that bans any army, it is okey for a potential world wide ban of LoV, is , and I don't say this lightly, stupid. Becaue, as as I wrote here before, potentialy there is an example of someone doing EVERYTHING imaginable prior, before and after a w40k game. Exeptions should not make the rules, and exeptions should not be the source of rulings. At least in my idea of a functioning world it is how it should be. Because if you do that, any society or group breaks down in to inviduals, and it stops to work and ends in a rules for thee and not for me situation. Now if someone has position in a community where that could be benefitial to them, I could imagine the idea being enticing. At least up to the moment when you change the community, get in contact with a different one or your status changes. There is a reason we have rules and laws, for everyone and while specific ones are very dangerous thing to have and implement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace 806816 11434717 wrote:
No. This might shock you, but not everything can be compared to your experiences at school, or sport. Let's assume for a moment this is a different type of ban to what is apparently a standard "no FAQ, no play" rule for some German tournaments. What you're suggesting is continuing a bad policy because that's how we've always done it. According to your logic, we can't ban any army regardless of reason, because we haven't done it in the past. If someone thinks not banning powerful armies in the past was a mistake it's logical to correct that mistake rather than continuing to make the same mistake over and over.

Up until very recently, the tournament history of 9th edition has pretty much been stumbling from one dominating, broken Codex to the next. FAQs and balance dataslates would knock one army down, only to be replaced by another (or in the case of DE, the same Codex with different units). If TOs wish to break that cycle it seems like they'll have to do it themselves, because GW seem incapable of doing it. That seems like a better solution than just constantly complaining as the inevitable cycle continues.

Yes. because the banning of a single faction causes what? GW looks at the sales numbers, decides they were bad, and the book, faction or entire game goes on a hiatus for updates. In 2-3 years GW may update it, but it can be a copy paste, possibly don't recive an update model wise etc.

What the TOs do will not break the cycle. GW will, in fact they probably already did, considering they work on books 6-12 months in advance, do marines and the first part of 10th ed the way they did. The reaction from a potential low seller of a faction, assuming it would actualy happen, would be years in the making. It would maybe impact wave 2 of books for 10th ed. That is 2 years in to the future for some people. And remember the change wouldn't be without consequances. Any way GW decides to fix the wave 2 books for 10th, would not be present in the early 10th books. Which would result in early 10th books being one of two things, over powered because they don't have limitations other books have or under powered. How underpowered works we can see right now in 9th. Go ask a salamander, IF or a RG player how they enjoy the reaction of GW to 9th ed rules or how fun was 8th for them till 2.0 came out. And those problems only happen if the sells do end up impacted enough for GW to care. If they don't, if GW doesn't change anything or slaps some FAQ for end of edition game play, then all this would have achived is to make life for players that wanted to play LoV miserable. And from what I understand you people saying all the time, is that the game is about people having fun. All people and not making the game unfun for others , or having your own fun at the cost of others. The whole ban thing looks to me like the opposit of those statements.

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


And it wasn't your community nor did I ask you.

What do you want a list of ALL possible reasons? Because they range from stuff like don't like the faction as a whole, through paint esthetics, rules of the faction, then prior history etc. The "why" question is just wierd one, humans don't need a reason to do anything. they can do a thing for any reason you can imagine, and then some more, you can not. Using it as country or community wide argument, aka if there is a store/club that bans any army, it is okey for a potential world wide ban of LoV, is , and I don't say this lightly, stupid. Becaue, as as I wrote here before, potentialy there is an example of someone doing EVERYTHING imaginable prior, before and after a w40k game. Exeptions should not make the rules, and exeptions should not be the source of rulings. At least in my idea of a functioning world it is how it should be. Because if you do that, any society or group breaks down in to inviduals, and it stops to work and ends in a rules for thee and not for me situation. Now if someone has position in a community where that could be benefitial to them, I could imagine the idea being enticing. At least up to the moment when you change the community, get in contact with a different one or your status changes. There is a reason we have rules and laws, for everyone and while specific ones are very dangerous thing to have and implement.

It was a simple question to understand why a weak faction got banned, its asinine so it peaked my interests. I think its more weird that you are ranting about me asking than about them banning GKs lol. I guess i hit a nerve and made you mad bc I was curious why someone would ban an army that had something like a 35-40% win rate for 5yrs.

Don't really see how banning a book is cowardice. And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

In practice though, we know how this is played. Some tournaments round the world will allow you to play with everything in the codex, proxying the models which are not currently available. If its as bonkers as many think (and mathhammer brokenness usually works out) - it will win loads of tournaments. The "professional 40k media circuit" will then kick off (its already started imo) - and in about 3-4 weeks GW will intervene because they hate the bad press of having a "broken game". (Even if, in reality, sub 1% of the playerbase have ever seen 9 Voidweavers on the table.)

They may try, per conspiratorial reasons, to hold the line until at least the first wave of pre-orders for Hekatons etc are out the door. Especially if that's only a few weeks away.

Ultimately the Judgement Token system just needs to be completely reworked. Ideas like "you lose 1 token a turn" may help - but in the face of things like "if you have one, count as 2", giving you auto-wound on 5s, is still busted as hell. Like Tyranids & Harlequins, its going to have to be completely chopped up from the initial in-codex version to make vaguely sensible.

Tyel wrote:
Don't really see how banning a book is cowardice. And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

In practice though, we know how this is played. Some tournaments round the world will allow you to play with everything in the codex, proxying the models which are not currently available. If its as bonkers as many think (and mathhammer brokenness usually works out) - it will win loads of tournaments. The "professional 40k media circuit" will then kick off (its already started imo) - and in about 3-4 weeks GW will intervene because they hate the bad press of having a "broken game". (Even if, in reality, sub 1% of the playerbase have ever seen 9 Voidweavers on the table.)

They may try, per conspiratorial reasons, to hold the line until at least the first wave of pre-orders for Hekatons etc are out the door. Especially if that's only a few weeks away.

Ultimately the Judgement Token system just needs to be completely reworked. Ideas like "you lose 1 token a turn" may help - but in the face of things like "if you have one, count as 2", giving you auto-wound on 5s, is still busted as hell. Like Tyranids & Harlequins, its going to have to be completely chopped up from the initial in-codex version to make vaguely sensible.

I see 3 good arguments why you should not ban for events (local games is different)

1) Get clear data as to what is a problem and what is not, and if it even is a problem. This is so we know what to change.
2) The meta could easily shift to counter, we dont know if we dont try, and we could also find a glaring weakness, or the opposite, without data we can't know.
3) Like in the past the community has been wrong (Look at Custodes, almost everyone thought they took an L with their new book and ended up being really strong).

 Amishprn86 wrote:

It was a simple question to understand why a weak faction got banned, its asinine so it peaked my interests. I think its more weird that you are ranting about me asking than about them banning GKs lol. I guess i hit a nerve and made you mad bc I was curious why someone would ban an army that had something like a 35-40% win rate for 5yrs.

Am not ranting. If I do then at the example Jid used. Asking why they do it makes no sense. The action of baning a faction is creating a bad precedance, the reason why someone would want to do it, or explaining it with "well one place bans X". Makes as much sense as if someone picked any thing humanity done over the course of it existance, and it did everything, to use it as an argument of doing something bad.

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine. This is beyond fethed up, and I am not afraid to use the words here. Some stuff should not be tried, because if it is bad things happen. And if we are to change stuff that were bad for the game, and stayed true since 2ed, then how about we start with something else then a new faction. How about for the first time GW fixs the problem of eldar breaking the entire game each time they get a new codex for example? The people playing that faction had decades of fun, maybe it is other people turn now. And surely it should be true for a faction which has been in the limbo since 2ed.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I see 3 good arguments why you should not ban for events (local games is different)

1) Get clear data as to what is a problem and what is not, and if it even is a problem. This is so we know what to change.
2) The meta could easily shift to counter, we dont know if we dont try, and we could also find a glaring weakness, or the opposite, without data we can't know.
3) Like in the past the community has been wrong (Look at Custodes, almost everyone thought they took an L with their new book and ended up being really strong).

Its a fair shout. There are potential issues that tournament games don't always provide the best evidence of what to change - because people can just roll to the next best thing in a book which is still busted - but its still better than pure speculation.

The meta could shift to counter - but I'm not really convinced this ever happens in 40k. I don't believe DE were a hammer in a meta full of nails - or Custodes a club in a meta full of seals. Mathematical imbalance is mathematical imbalance. The probabilities will out.

Which, in turn, is why I think point 3 probably won't apply here - because its maths versus sentiment. "How will Custodes ever survive without a 3++" did seem a weird Custodes-Internet freakout, without ever really putting much "how will this actually go through in game" maths behind it. But also - some of the buffs to Custodes were presumably not known then. Much like (the possibly less remembered) doom and gloom for DE that circulated purely on GW's "previews" of the codex. "half shots, but 2 damage splinter cannons, yeah, this is going to be awful..."

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

I did not say that lol. It was quoted from someone else....

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

I did not say that lol. It was quoted from someone else....

Good point - I've edited my response above.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I see 3 good arguments why you should not ban for events (local games is different)

1) Get clear data as to what is a problem and what is not, and if it even is a problem. This is so we know what to change.
2) The meta could easily shift to counter, we dont know if we dont try, and we could also find a glaring weakness, or the opposite, without data we can't know.
3) Like in the past the community has been wrong (Look at Custodes, almost everyone thought they took an L with their new book and ended up being really strong).

Just the itsy bitsy problem that NR 1- requires GW to actually pay attention.
to their community and Community testers, they didn't really show any attention which would have reduced most likely quite a bit egregious exemples. (contrary they seem to have laid off most of them without much fuss )
Why should they then consider Tournamentsresults until the backlash reaches critical and even then, considering certain factions and units over the duration of 8th and 9th (cultists) seems perfectly willing to correct according to their capricious imagination of a faction rather than hard data.

Slipspace wrote:
This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Yes. Its perhaps less common in the modern tourney scene - because it tends to be red in tooth and claw.
But plenty of people have gone "I'm not playing this" - whether because its overpowered, or even just because *everyone* is playing it, and therefore its become boring.

Plenty of people for instance stopped playing Marine players during their 2019-2020 era of dominance. Not necessarily due to the power level - but because playing Marines & Marines and more Marines got incredibly boring. If 40% or something of a store is bringing Marines, and "they want to avoid mirrors because its boring", that's all you got.

Its always been my view on highly skewed armies. If I ran out and got 9 Voidweavers, I'd have gotten to play the people in my group maybe once... and then they'd have gone "nah, no, bring something else or I'm not interested."

I see these things happen and just feel bad for Mike B and his team, the organised play team clearly aren't getting the leverage or access to the processes they need before print and are left dealing with... this.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

GK essentially were 5th edition's Leagues of Votann. New army, better at everything than everyone else and outright hard-countered a bunch of armies, not counting the auto-win against daemons.

The guy hated them so much he had them banned. Despite editions and the army changing a lot, he never lifted that ban and still tells people with GK armies that they can't play them at his place.

Slipspace wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:A bit of general speculation: could all this bad balance just be that the rules teams are stretched too thin and don't have enough time to do things right?

I don't think so. I think it's a company culture issue. They either don't value balance or the designers are incapable of delivering it. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

As I've explained elsewhere in the past, its very likely a time-factor issue. The pace of the release schedule does not allow for these books to be thoroughly playtested and evaluated against every other book. Its quite likely that they are only being evaluated against the most recent books to have been released - likely only those that are part of the same development "tranche". That would explain why codex releases tend to follow a sort of pattern to their relative power levels, with batches of books that scale well amongst themselves, but not with other batches of books released prior or subsequent to that one.

Its also bares mentioning that lead times on production schedules means that a codex being released now could not have captured or accounted for any post-release balance updated, etc. made in the prior ~3-6 month timeframe. In fact, its quite likely that codecies being released now (Votann) were evaluated relative to the meta in the march/april timeframe when Harlequins and Tyranids were making an absolute mockery of any pretention of game balance within 40k. In fact, if you look at Votann in relation to nids and harlies as they were on release prior to updates, etc. they do match up pretty well.

Dudeface wrote:I see these things happen and just feel bad for Mike B and his team, the organised play team clearly aren't getting the leverage or access to the processes they need before print and are left dealing with... this.

As I understand it, Mike B is an events organiser. He doesn't have any official playtesting or game balance role at all, so there's no reason he would or should get access to this kind of thing, at least on an individual Codex level. It is, of course, a problem if people think otherwise and he gets blamed for these things, which is likely to happen if he's the face of the organised events.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:A bit of general speculation: could all this bad balance just be that the rules teams are stretched too thin and don't have enough time to do things right?

I don't think so. I think it's a company culture issue. They either don't value balance or the designers are incapable of delivering it. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

As I've explained elsewhere in the past, its very likely a time-factor issue. The pace of the release schedule does not allow for these books to be thoroughly playtested and evaluated against every other book.

The problem with that theory is balance was at least as bad even when they had much longer release schedules. I'm sure the current pace of release doesn't help but I'd hesitate to say it's the main reason.

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

You are confusing pick-up games with tournament games. I'm never "compelled" to play a pick-up game, heck i turned one down this weekend because I was enjoying another game I was watching and wanted to see the conclusion play out. So yes in pick-up games I might turn it down because i really don't want to play against a meta list or a specific build or because I'm just being lazy. Competitive tournaments are completely different though, the entire point is to play whatever your matched up against and win. There would be zero point to these tournaments if they begin to arbitrarily ban "strong stuff". Let's use the largest tournament as an example Say the LVO bans the LOV so instead Tyranids win.... well clearly Tyranids were stronger than the competition so they should have been banned..... but if we ban them then sisters win, which clearly makes them better than other armies so they should have been banned..... then elder would win.... repeat till the bottom.

Banning factions in competitive tournaments creates a race to the bottom and defeat the entire purpose. This is also why this entire subject is theoretical and we wont be seeing any to the truly big tournament organizers banning any faction (with the exceptions of armies including models that arent released yet, for obvious reasons)

Asmodios wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

You are confusing pick-up games with tournament games.

The point I was replying to was taking about 40k more generally, not just tournament 40k. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Slipspace wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

You are confusing pick-up games with tournament games.

The point I was replying to was taking about 40k more generally, not just tournament 40k. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

The entire thread is talking about tournaments .... because an individual can refuse to play anything for any reason without an effect on the community. The entire term "ban" means some sort of group or event isnt allowing a book

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Case and point one of the biggest questions that the community has been asking in 30k for example is if a rule applies to legion specific bolters.

For reference there is a rule in 30k called fury of the legion that gives bolt weapons and extra shot If they remain still, the problem is the rule says "applies to bolters" but no one is sure if that counts to legion specific bolters, like tsons with their asphyx bolter.

It's "case in point".

Are legion specific bolters still bolters? Obviously they are, so why wouldn't it apply? Shrapnel bolters and asphyx bolters are still bolters. It's literally right there in the name...

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Don't really see how banning a book is cowardice. And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

In practice though, we know how this is played. Some tournaments round the world will allow you to play with everything in the codex, proxying the models which are not currently available. If its as bonkers as many think (and mathhammer brokenness usually works out) - it will win loads of tournaments. The "professional 40k media circuit" will then kick off (its already started imo) - and in about 3-4 weeks GW will intervene because they hate the bad press of having a "broken game". (Even if, in reality, sub 1% of the playerbase have ever seen 9 Voidweavers on the table.)

They may try, per conspiratorial reasons, to hold the line until at least the first wave of pre-orders for Hekatons etc are out the door. Especially if that's only a few weeks away.

Ultimately the Judgement Token system just needs to be completely reworked. Ideas like "you lose 1 token a turn" may help - but in the face of things like "if you have one, count as 2", giving you auto-wound on 5s, is still busted as hell. Like Tyranids & Harlequins, its going to have to be completely chopped up from the initial in-codex version to make vaguely sensible.

I see 3 good arguments why you should not ban for events (local games is different)

1) Get clear data as to what is a problem and what is not, and if it even is a problem. This is so we know what to change.
2) The meta could easily shift to counter, we dont know if we dont try, and we could also find a glaring weakness, or the opposite, without data we can't know.
3) Like in the past the community has been wrong (Look at Custodes, almost everyone thought they took an L with their new book and ended up being really strong).

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Slipspace wrote:

The problem with that theory is balance was at least as bad even when they had much longer release schedules. I'm sure the current pace of release doesn't help but I'd hesitate to say it's the main reason.

I dunno, I feel like balance has become worse post-8th - I obviously have no data to support this and don't really care to research it, but I will say that while there were always severe balance issues, it tended towards being 1-2 books over the lifecycle of a given edition, whereas in the post 8th world, its like 1-2 books with egregious levels of power *per year*.

I don't think release speed is an issue.

To quote the Goonhammer Hammer of Math article: "Four of the fundamental expectations of Warhammer 40k are that (1) tough things are hard to wound, (2) invulnerable saves are a reliable floor, (3) excess damage is lost, and (4) that probability drives the results of the game.

Leagues of Votann break them all."

It doesn't take "time" to realise breaking these fundamentals is likely to be problematic.

The problem of recent 40k is that you've got this massive stat creep at just about all levels (unit stats, weapon stats, chapter tactics, stratagems, wlt/relics etc etc). But GW have also been forced to create a "Purity bonus" for just about every faction. And in trying to increase the design space, this often "breaks" core 40k, and hence proves problematic to balance.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Because obvious hyperbole.

But you're welcome to try again to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. Hopefully with a little more thought and rationale instead of just repeating yourself. Maybe word it in a way my duum consoomer brain can comprehend it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tneva is right. The only language gw is willing to understand is sales numbers.
Considering what little influence the community testers had and how gw just cut them out,there is no point in gw to consider data from tournaments, in essence any concern of the community of depriving gw of "valuable data" by banning lov from tourneys is pretty irrelevant.

Unless by the fluke chance some of the gw designers get their backsides handed to them in the freak incident. But that requires these designers to leave their ivory tower, which they rarely do. But even then that is debatable and may be coinciding with a balance related loss of sales.

I think he's right if only for the reason that the best way we can get GW to change their release method is by refusal to buy and bans.

Banning might seem counter productive, but we can't keep playing extreme whack-a-mole if we want the long term health of the game to be good.

GW's desire to push a gakky book out isn't from pushing models, but more like Cyberpunk 2077 where they should have spent more time on it, but put it out there, because they need to actually just sell the game to keep money coming in.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Whatever happened to German players liking a challenge?

If the intent was "We're not allowing Leagues until the full release", that's one thing, but if they're doing this when they weren't doing it for other OP books during the edition, I have to wonder at the sudden onset of cowardice.

It's the continued lack of quality control, I think.

Dataslates as an idea are awesome, but they're really cumbersome at the moment.

Sometimes they do fine like with Knights, CSM, and Daemons ( obviously issues still occur ) and then torpedo the whole thing with books like DE and Votann. And we've just come to a point where despite the majority of books being fine the upheaval of a bad book affects everyone else as well.

Karol wrote:

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine

Ummm....you realize right that's the core principle in the game don't you?

Getting to play vs anybody you wish isn't human right nobody can deny you. If i don't want to play vs you for whatever reason i don't have to play. As is if you appear at my door step demanding me to play i'll just laugh and say no. There's literally no way whatsoever for you to force me to play vs you. What ya gonna do? Threaten to nuke me?

You...don't...get...to...decide...who..people...play...with.

 oni wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Because obvious hyperbole.

But you're welcome to try again to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. Hopefully with a little more thought and rationale instead of just repeating yourself. Maybe word it in a way my duum consoomer brain can comprehend it.

I already did for your consoomer attitude. If GW released Cultists with Assault Cannons standard, but kept them the same price, is that fine because you think they look good and you have a need to consoom?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean Christ, dude, look at your original post:

 oni wrote:
A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

You're the epitome of Kirby saying that the hobby is buying GW models and paint. CONSOOM

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 oni wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Because obvious hyperbole.

But you're welcome to try again to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. Hopefully with a little more thought and rationale instead of just repeating yourself. Maybe word it in a way my duum consoomer brain can comprehend it.

I already did for your consoomer attitude. If GW released Cultists with Assault Cannons standard, but kept them the same price, is that fine because you think they look good and you have a need to consoom?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean Christ, dude, look at your original post:

 oni wrote:
A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

You're the epitome of Kirby saying that the hobby is buying GW models and paint. CONSOOM

Hmmm... Yeah, I'm still not gettin' it, but you get a gold star for trying. Keep at it champ.

You don't get you're telling people to ignore the rules and CONSOOM ALL MODELS TO BUILD ARMIES? That's pretty aerodynamic of you

I think the problem is that I am reasonably hype for the new models. I think they are mostly cool. (Some I remain kind of neutral to hostile on - but there's enough here).

But I'm also hot for the CSM. Who didn't break the game. But I'm fond of Tau. Who did. But... I'm also fond of GSC, who didn't. But my main army is DE - who did. Etc. My very limited Ork collection is essentially unplayable because of how that book clearly wants you to build armies.

Banning is imo a reasonable take on GW failing to balance the game. I don't think its strictly necessary these days - because online backlash=GW nerfs in about the time it takes to order, build and paint a kit.

But I remember how things used to be. Where GW would throw out rules, and that was just it for 4-6 years. If stuff was busted, it remained so. If stuff was incredibly weak, it remained so. And this is why most 8th edition Fantasy tournaments had a whole host of rules to try and "balance" a game GW had completely abandoned (and was shortly going to kill off). People would say of 7th "oh its fine if you don't have daemons, Vampire counts & dark elves, who... seem to make up 60-70% of tournament lists." 40k didn't quite get as proscriptive - due I think to the whims of those behind ITC/ETC - but tbh, at the height of 7ths excesses, it almost certainly would have been better if it had.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah this, the army you can say isn't officially released, so makes sense to say you can't play it at an event. Not bc its OP, if that was the case then Nids and Admech would have been banned.

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Show me on the statement what was quoted where they're saying it was due to the release method, as opposed to the alleged power of the book. I'll wait.

To give in and do it for this book, and not, say, DE/AdMech/the-Harlequins-part-of-Eldar/Custodes/Tyranids - just off the top of my head - is rank cowardice. If the power is going to be the measure of when you ban something, have the intestinal fortitude to ban books for existing armies before you do it to new ones.

Or, y'know, encourage your players to "git gud".

You can't "git gud" to beat Votann. They're that broken.

Votann is also seemingly worse than Nids or Harlequins. So it makes sense to ban them first. If the community receives this ban well, think about banning something else.

You calling it cowardice just makes it seem like you're salty you won't get some unearned wins with the new book. I know people who are 3d printing Hekatons to have them to beat ob people asap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

because a local community can do whatever they want
same as some ban Forgeworld/HH units or Names Characters

Sure they can, doesn't make it right, but I was genuinely asking why and not a answer like "Bc I said so". Thanks for adding nothing to the convo.

because this is the reason, a local community (1 store/club/event), banned them because they don't like them, nothing else

no wide "no GK allowed" in a whole region or event series, just the local community, because they can do it

I know also 3 local stores with bans on different armies/units which is only important if you play in that store and no reason needed

I sincerely doubt that. I think you're making crap up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

GK essentially were 5th edition's Leagues of Votann. New army, better at everything than everyone else and outright hard-countered a bunch of armies, not counting the auto-win against daemons.

The guy hated them so much he had them banned. Despite editions and the army changing a lot, he never lifted that ban and still tells people with GK armies that they can't play them at his place.

Ward, ironically, is probably responsible for both codexes, but I still don't believe you.

I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

 Jidmah wrote:

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Dude sounds like he knows whats up

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Dude sounds like he knows whats up

The truely woke know they should have stayed part of codex Daemonhunters and never gone an inch farther.

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Ah so he's the classic neckbeard that never moved on from 4th, both in 40k and emotional maturity.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Ah so he's the classic neckbeard that never moved on from 4th, both in 40k and emotional maturity.

I'd check if that computer monitor is made of glass there bro...

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Yeah I always hear about these nightmare game stores and then it ends up being smoke and mirrors.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Yeah I always hear about these nightmare game stores and then it ends up being smoke and mirrors.

Its even more odd bc if I had a game with a friend with GKs, how is he going to stop us? He is really going to tell us to leave? Running a game store you can't afford to do that.....

Hecaton wrote:
You can't "git gud" to beat Votann. They're that broken.

Votann is also seemingly worse than Nids or Harlequins. So it makes sense to ban them first. If the community receives this ban well, think about banning something else.

You calling it cowardice just makes it seem like you're salty you won't get some unearned wins with the new book. I know people who are 3d printing Hekatons to have them to beat ob people asap.

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.

As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
You can't "git gud" to beat Votann. They're that broken.

Votann is also seemingly worse than Nids or Harlequins. So it makes sense to ban them first. If the community receives this ban well, think about banning something else.

You calling it cowardice just makes it seem like you're salty you won't get some unearned wins with the new book. I know people who are 3d printing Hekatons to have them to beat ob people asap.

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.

As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.

Well said all round.

There's also the element of trying to prove they're OP to GW and more importantly, direct the nerfs. Bit hard to do without any formally presented play data.

Whether it was the "plan" or not but again, the intent seems to be that Votann are weaker into msu horde armies, whilst conveniently sandwiched between daemons and guard.

Ofc who knows if that might be a valid foil to them because, as per usual, people don't run then because they're not meta... until they are.

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

While that could be the case, it's also true that it's possible LoV are so incredibly broken there is no challenge to overcome, there's nothing you can do in the face of how broken the rules are. I've seen this a couple of times in the past, most recently with SM 2.0 against many older armies, but also with several WH armies. We're also capable of extrapolating from other people's experiences, which means we may not have to personally play a game to know how it will turn out.

Personally, I think it's a little bit too early to declare LoV to be absolutely unbeatable. That said, it does seem their combination of rules and abilities mean the chances of "figuring things out" seem pretty low right now.

Slipspace wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

While that could be the case, it's also true that it's possible LoV are so incredibly broken there is no challenge to overcome, there's nothing you can do in the face of how broken the rules are. I've seen this a couple of times in the past, most recently with SM 2.0 against many older armies, but also with several WH armies. We're also capable of extrapolating from other people's experiences, which means we may not have to personally play a game to know how it will turn out.

Personally, I think it's a little bit too early to declare LoV to be absolutely unbeatable. That said, it does seem their combination of rules and abilities mean the chances of "figuring things out" seem pretty low right now.

Its more polarizing than massively broken, some armies will have zero problems with them, but some armies I can't see beating them at all with any type of Tac list from LoV.

So were all other top armies in 8th and 9th. In generaly the top tier is at best consistent of 5-6 armies or even lists. And sometimes there is an army which is a tier to itself. The reaction to LoV is extremly childish. As if people took loans to make bets on tournament results in end of 9th, and now LoV throw a wrench in to their possibility of getting the money back.

Slipspace wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

While that could be the case, it's also true that it's possible LoV are so incredibly broken there is no challenge to overcome, there's nothing you can do in the face of how broken the rules are. I've seen this a couple of times in the past, most recently with SM 2.0 against many older armies, but also with several WH armies. We're also capable of extrapolating from other people's experiences, which means we may not have to personally play a game to know how it will turn out.

Personally, I think it's a little bit too early to declare LoV to be absolutely unbeatable. That said, it does seem their combination of rules and abilities mean the chances of "figuring things out" seem pretty low right now.

Yes there is way. Buy votann army yourself

And GW marketing department rubs hands together.

I mean, people can still dunk on people with Votann at home and test their ability to overcome odds stacked against them.

But warhammer events over a whole weekend where people spend potentially spend months painting, if you're having to weight the enjoyment of one Votann (or Tyranid, Harlequins, etc..) player vs. two players with .... dunno, Imperial Fist and AdMech, the former is in the minority and should take a ban. Simples.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I mean, people can still dunk on people with Votann at home and test their ability to overcome odds stacked against them.

But warhammer events over a whole weekend where people spend potentially spend months painting, if you're having to weight the enjoyment of one Votann (or Tyranid, Harlequins, etc..) player vs. two players with .... dunno, Imperial Fist and AdMech, the former is in the minority and should take a ban. Simples.

Well depends what the purpose of the event is, is it a more hobby focus event? or is it a top GT going for high points event?

"Git gud, and don't ban books if you haven't already" are not very convincing arguments. Since I don't play 40k anymore, and kind of just watch from the sidelines, my point of view might be a bit muddled, but if Infinity had an army released that was so strong that most other armies couldn't fight it, I feel it would deserve a ban. And if it is the second or third to be released, when the others didn't get banned? Ban it, still. Just because other things got to be overpowered doesn't mean that this does, too. Things being overpowered is generally bad, and allowing a bad thing just because bad things have happened is not a good thing. Maybe Games Workshop will learn next time? Who knows.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Git gud, and don't ban books if you haven't already" are not very convincing arguments.

I find banning the next best step since the consoomers keep buying all the new codices despite glaring issues with the quality and schedule of releases

Even if they are only in the top ranks of the factions, I still think a ban is worthy due to there rules.

They ignore parts of the rules, a fair bit of it and could be very oppressive on the game itself at all levels of play.

Some of the math just swings so much, and rather simple to swing it towards the LoV that I do not think it introduces anything good to the meta for the future right now from gameplay.

Shame, as I actually like more of the models than dislike.

 Dysartes wrote:

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?

Interesting. I'm sure you're totally going to be cool losing 95%+ games vs. Votann no matter what you do.

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

It's so badly balanced that you need to ban it to send a message. If 40k was solitaire, I'd agree, it's a challenge. But you have to turn that around on Votann players - why are they so afraid of a challenge they're playing Votann?

 Dysartes wrote:
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.

It's not necessarily cowardice, given you want people to participate in their event. Moreover, if we take the idea that Votann are even worse than these other factions, then it's not cowardice, Votann was just finally over the line.

 Dysartes wrote:
As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.

If one thinks that Votann is a higher power level than the rest, no, it's not.

Hecaton wrote:


Interesting. I'm sure you're totally going to be cool losing 95%+ games vs. Votann no matter what you do.

95%? Pssh...as a guard player, I'm cool with losing 99% of my matches (couldn't resist)

On a more relevant note though, I've seen several batreps (although not a majority) on youtube where LoV loses. My general sense is that it's typically a loss on points despite LoV dominating in kills.

Hecaton wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?

Interesting. I'm sure you're totally going to be cool losing 95%+ games vs. Votann no matter what you do.

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

It's so badly balanced that you need to ban it to send a message. If 40k was solitaire, I'd agree, it's a challenge. But you have to turn that around on Votann players - why are they so afraid of a challenge they're playing Votann?

 Dysartes wrote:
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.

It's not necessarily cowardice, given you want people to participate in their event. Moreover, if we take the idea that Votann are even worse than these other factions, then it's not cowardice, Votann was just finally over the line.

 Dysartes wrote:
As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.

If one thinks that Votann is a higher power level than the rest, no, it's not.

But how do you know they win 95% of their games against Dysartes?

There's lots of reasons someone collects a force without "easy wins" being one of them, there's only one reason you ban a faction and it's to prevent more losses.

The point is you can't prove that Votann are "finally over the line" as there is no line to measure against and no data to plot over it. Just like everyone else clamouring for the ban, you're doing based off Internet hype and maths hammer. Yes they will need a nerf but you can't objectively show they're worse than peak DE, Admech, Nids, Tau or Custodes.

Well true. It"s more likely 100 than 95.

I rekon for any other company, drukhari, admech, custodes, Tau and nids would have been over the line aswell tbh.

Edited for Rule 1- ingtær.

As someone that has now 3.5 R&H armies, let me tell you, it sucks.

And whilest i don't like the esthetic of the new votan my self i can understand that some people like them enough that they say, this is my army. Being then sidelined is frankly pretty sucky.

otoh we let gw get away with a lot of BS before votan and singling them out due to being the "nu" army is also an issue i think.

meanwhile however the dex is fundamentally a problematic ruleset balance wise.

Ultimatly if i had my way, we would've told gw a long time ago to cease their gak, alas the community also is part of the problem with buying nu shiny and damn the consequences, one needs to just look at WHFB and the insistence on 3000pts nothing lower, which enticed gw to pull what we called goldhänder and blood knights, which in tern killed the game of plenty.

Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

 Dysartes wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

They have. What's being missed in all of this, despite it being repeated a number of times, is the German ban is actually standard for pre-FAQ books.

Even if that weren't the case, if you believe not banning previous OP Codices was a mistake, continuing to make that mistake because of an appeal to tradition is stupid. I really wish people would stop bringing up the fact bans haven't happened before as some sort of justification for not doing so now. It makes no sense. Either the ban is warranted due to the power level of the army, or it isn't. You can argue about how OP a faction needs to be to deserve a ban, but "we've never done it before" is not a justification to continue making the same mistake over and over again.

Leagues already getting hit with nerfs: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/29/leagues-of-votann-balance-update-a-word-from-james-workshop/

Also, looks like I was right on the money in terms of how timeline effects balance (that or GW was browsing on dakka and saw my post and said "yeah, thats a good excuse!").

Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"

Good to see them respond quickly. Their reason for why it happened is equal parts hilarious and terrifying. It's basically saying "we keep power creeping the everloving crap out of our game and now something's gone horribly wrong. Who woulda thought?"

Pro-tip GW: maybe if you had a coherent plan at the start of an edition, and any form of rules oversight or restraint, you wouldn't have to keep doing this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"

It is worth to note that from the way GW described their method of testing the rules for their later in edition armies, the Tyranids and Eldar were designed to coexist with armies like LoV. Yet somehow there was no planet wide call for bans of those factions, even if they were just or more broken the LoV. It is a double standard, and it will create a situation where some factions are more privilaged then others and just allowed to be broken, while others won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

They have. What's being missed in all of this, despite it being repeated a number of times, is the German ban is actually standard for pre-FAQ books.

Even if that weren't the case, if you believe not banning previous OP Codices was a mistake, continuing to make that mistake because of an appeal to tradition is stupid. I really wish people would stop bringing up the fact bans haven't happened before as some sort of justification for not doing so now. It makes no sense. Either the ban is warranted due to the power level of the army, or it isn't. You can argue about how OP a faction needs to be to deserve a ban, but "we've never done it before" is not a justification to continue making the same mistake over and over again.

There is a difference between being told that faciton X maybe broken, but you have to wait for the meta to adjust and GW to release the FAQ for it. And being told that faction Y breaks the game and there for should not be played against until GW nerfs it. The changes done to LoV are substential, especialy for a slow army that was designed to work like a semi horde. The changes made to eldar or tyranids, in reaction to their books weren't as sever, and most of all didn't impact the the armies as much. Even with points hikes Leviathan for tyranids is still the way to go for example.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"

Except these bans aren't a new thing.

It's probably more the constant doomposting in every single 40k environment online that made them do that change

To be honest, I don't think any "early release" box faction should be allowed at tournaments. I don't think you should be allowed to bring a book to events until it's readily available for everyone. Regardless of strength. It's just not fair for everyone when there isn't access.

Karol wrote:

There is a difference between being told that faciton X maybe broken, but you have to wait for the meta to adjust and GW to release the FAQ for it. And being told that faction Y breaks the game and there for should not be played against until GW nerfs it. The changes done to LoV are substential, especialy for a slow army that was designed to work like a semi horde. The changes made to eldar or tyranids, in reaction to their books weren't as sever, and most of all didn't impact the the armies as much. Even with points hikes Leviathan for tyranids is still the way to go for example.

Karol, for the millionth time, the historical brokenness of other factions is irrelevant to the question of whether LoV need nerfs now. Plenty of people will argue Nids probably still need nerfs to tone them down. Either the LoV book is too powerful, or it isn't. Refusing to take remedial actions because mistakes were made in the past is the dumbest reason to do something I can think of.

BTW, anyone else think Adam and Eddie's statement sounded a little bit like hostages forced to read a confession?

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

There is a difference between being told that faciton X maybe broken, but you have to wait for the meta to adjust and GW to release the FAQ for it. And being told that faction Y breaks the game and there for should not be played against until GW nerfs it. The changes done to LoV are substential, especialy for a slow army that was designed to work like a semi horde. The changes made to eldar or tyranids, in reaction to their books weren't as sever, and most of all didn't impact the the armies as much. Even with points hikes Leviathan for tyranids is still the way to go for example.

Karol, for the millionth time, the historical brokenness of other factions is irrelevant to the question of whether LoV need nerfs now. Plenty of people will argue Nids probably still need nerfs to tone them down. Either the LoV book is too powerful, or it isn't. Refusing to take remedial actions because mistakes were made in the past is the dumbest reason to do something I can think of.

BTW, anyone else think Adam and Eddie's statement sounded a little bit like hostages forced to read a confession?

Adam and Eddie are only vaguely aware that there's a game attached to the model previews that they do and think anybody engaging in the hobby beyond cooing at pretty models is a travesty. I could feel their seething rage at the gamers who necessitated them doing such a ridiculous thing.

Slipspace 806816 11436878 wrote:
Karol, for the millionth time, the historical brokenness of other factions is irrelevant to the question of whether LoV need nerfs now. Plenty of people will argue Nids probably still need nerfs to tone them down. Either the LoV book is too powerful, or it isn't. Refusing to take remedial actions because mistakes were made in the past is the dumbest reason to do something I can think of.

BTW, anyone else think Adam and Eddie's statement sounded a little bit like hostages forced to read a confession?

But what remedy is this. Either it will not change a thing, LoV will just lose to the armies they were losing before aka those with soliter style builds and fast armies that can trade with them very efficiently, now more efficiently with LoV points hikes or it will big an impactful change and LoV will go the way of Ad Mecha. Only Ad Mecha or Orks, or even my GKs at least had those 2-3 months when they were fun to play.

The changes made are thrown in to a void. What GW should be doing is buffing armies that have 30-40% win rates or who don't have a good build for how the meta looks right now and not nerf a new army. Especialy as this is a thing they have not done since 8th ed, even the pre codex release change to SW wasn't as big as the changes done now. GW changed a core rule and hiked up the price of an entire army, do you think they have been testing this the last 2-3 week or at least checking how the codex will work with such changes in 9th and 10th ed? I think they didn't.

Or to make it simple. If the remedy can kill the patient , like it did a few others in the past, it should not be intreduced. specialy when it creates very bad precedence for the future.

Karol wrote:


It is worth to note that from the way GW described their method of testing the rules for their later in edition armies, the Tyranids and Eldar were designed to coexist with armies like LoV. Yet somehow there was no planet wide call for bans of those factions, even if they were just or more broken the LoV. It is a double standard, and it will create a situation where some factions are more privilaged then others and just allowed to be broken, while others won't.

oh feth off.

Its not the same thing. Banning a codex that is brand new with no existing players isnt the same as banning 20+ year old codexes that people have full armies already.

Oh, and BTW, the tournaments that banned Votann already ban every new codex before they receive a FAQ, it only got blown out of proportions because of clickbait sites like shittybits

Karol wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"

It is worth to note that from the way GW described their method of testing the rules for their later in edition armies, the Tyranids and Eldar were designed to coexist with armies like LoV. Yet somehow there was no planet wide call for bans of those factions, even if they were just or more broken the LoV. It is a double standard, and it will create a situation where some factions are more privilaged then others and just allowed to be broken, while others won't.

Alternative theory, Nids being broken as gak and running roughshod over the competitive scene in the past is why people are less willing to take gak now.

"We've been on this ride before, it was garbage. Lets not do that again".

So it is a double standard. Eldar and tyranids have their books not "fixed", necrons can have their do what their do with no fixs or bans, same with sob. But if your factions is less popular or new, it is okey to ban it. That is not how rules should work, they should be the same for everyone.

Even GW wanted to implement such changes then they should write an article, that this codex starts a new batch of book and that since this one they will be adjusting it X days or weeks in to the game, and that this is going to be done to all books.

The problem wasn't the tournament bans, the list people could build out of the limited edition boxs were bad, because they like the crucial units like the fortress or the LoV techmarine. The problem is the trickle down to stores, store events and regular games, where people suddenly didn't go with the prior talk about waiting for meta to adjust, something they often said when their armies were OP, but to no playing for you till GW nerfs the faction.

Karol wrote:
So it is a double standard. Eldar and tyranids have their books not "fixed", necrons can have their do what their do with no fixs or bans, same with sob. But if your factions is less popular or new, it is okey to ban it. That is not how rules should work, they should be the same for everyone.

Even GW wanted to implement such changes then they should write an article, that this codex starts a new batch of book and that since this one they will be adjusting it X days or weeks in to the game, and that this is going to be done to all books.

The problem wasn't the tournament bans, the list people could build out of the limited edition boxs were bad, because they like the crucial units like the fortress or the LoV techmarine. The problem is the trickle down to stores, store events and regular games, where people suddenly didn't go with the prior talk about waiting for meta to adjust, something they often said when their armies were OP, but to no playing for you till GW nerfs the faction.

wtf are you on? the fact that a tournament in germany bans a codex (like they do with EVERY CODEX) doesn't suddenly mean you can't play the codex at your LGS.

 Ordana wrote:
Alternative theory, Nids being broken as gak and running roughshod over the competitive scene in the past is why people are less willing to take gak now.

"We've been on this ride before, it was garbage. Lets not do that again".

Try playing not Eldar, Necrons, SoB or a mirror in to leviathan and then we can talk what ever Tyranids are broken or not. The only thing that is keeping them in check, is the other top factions and the secondaries they have. If nids, or eldar, had necron seconderies then in comperation something like LoV would seem laughably mid tier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:



wtf are you on? the fact that a tournament in germany bans a codex (like they do with EVERY CODEX) doesn't suddenly mean you can't play the codex at your LGS.

Only that is what was happening here, people were refusing to play LoV. Same way they were refusing to play IH at the end of 8th ed. It should not be an option, and it should not be an option especialy for people whose armies have been at the top for a long time.

Karol wrote:

Only that is what was happening here, people were refusing to play LoV. Same way they were refusing to play IH at the end of 8th ed. It should not be an option, and it should not be an option especialy for people whose armies have been at the top for a long time.

Thats a problem with the toxicity of your LGS, not the situation for the whole world. We've already told you how bad your store is.

The pts-adjustments are waaay to harsh. The fact that even Thunderkyn (a unit no one has complained about because they where so meh) got hit with a 5ppm increase shows that they have no clue what they're doing and is simply acting in a panic before more events bann LoV. "Nerf everything, quickly!"

The change to autowounds counting as 6s is something I support, BUT with the added change that all the weapons with triggers on 6s to wound instead trigger on 6s to hit. With the new change, these triggers will more or less never procc on units with 3 JTs, which makes no sense from neither a fluff/logical PoV nor a rules PoV.
"We've built up a real grudge against that unit, now our weapons are less powerful!?"

These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed. I predict that LoV will be a low-tier army untill some of them get reverted.

Karol wrote:
So it is a double standard.

No. It's logic and common sense.

Karol wrote:
Eldar and tyranids have their books not "fixed", necrons can have their do what their do with no fixs or bans, same with sob. But if your factions is less popular or new, it is okey to ban it. That is not how rules should work, they should be the same for everyone.

No. If those rules don't work and we realise they're causing too many problems we absolutely should change our behaviour in light of this new information. Again, what you're proposing is continuing to make a mistake because we made the same mistake in the past. That's stupid.

People thought LoV were massively overpowered. If we're talking about banning them the following are things we need to consider:

1. Are the rules really as broken as we think?
2. Will the meta evolve to counter them in a way that maintains a healthy overall game state?
3. (More minor concern, possibly) How will a ban affect owners of the army?

You'll notice "what did we do in the past?" is not a question we need to concern ourselves with. It's utterly irrelevant. Either the rules are so OP we need to ban them, or they're not. There's a discussion to be had there, for sure, but it's got nothing to do with how we handled things in the past.

I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

 MinscS2 wrote:
The pts-adjustments are waaay to harsh. The fact that even Thunderkyn (a unit no one has complained about because they where so meh) got hit with a 5ppm increase shows that they have no clue what they're doing and is simply acting in a panic before more events bann LoV. "Nerf everything, quickly!"

The change to autowounds counting as 6s is something I support, BUT with the added change that all the weapons with triggers on 6s to wound instead trigger on 6s to hit. With the new change, these triggers will more or less never procc on units with 3 JTs, which makes no sense from neither a fluff/logical PoV nor a rules PoV.
"We've built up a real grudge against that unit, now our weapons are less powerful!?"

These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed. I predict that LoV will be a low-tier army untill some of them get reverted.

Nobody mentioned Thudnerkyn because there were so many other broken things to worry about, but what is a thunderkyn? its a stronger Gravis Space Marine armed with a +1S and +1AP Heavy bolter as stock. It basically gets AoC on steroids and ignores dense cover when shooting. Yeah I would say those guys are pretty damn good at 40ppm, They aren't as game breaking as other things but christ almighty, they make my 25pt Flashgitz look like grots by comparison

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
The pts-adjustments are waaay to harsh. The fact that even Thunderkyn (a unit no one has complained about because they where so meh) got hit with a 5ppm increase shows that they have no clue what they're doing and is simply acting in a panic before more events bann LoV. "Nerf everything, quickly!"

The change to autowounds counting as 6s is something I support, BUT with the added change that all the weapons with triggers on 6s to wound instead trigger on 6s to hit. With the new change, these triggers will more or less never procc on units with 3 JTs, which makes no sense from neither a fluff/logical PoV nor a rules PoV.
"We've built up a real grudge against that unit, now our weapons are less powerful!?"

These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed. I predict that LoV will be a low-tier army untill some of them get reverted.

Nobody mentioned Thudnerkyn because there were so many other broken things to worry about, but what is a thunderkyn? its a stronger Gravis Space Marine armed with a +1S and +1AP Heavy bolter as stock. It basically gets AoC on steroids and ignores dense cover when shooting. Yeah I would say those guys are pretty damn good at 40ppm, They aren't as game breaking as other things but christ almighty, they make my 25pt Flashgitz look like grots by comparison

Orks shouldn't be used as a measure of power though because they're so bad right now that I'm surprised it made it through GW's vigorous playtesting (assuming you actually believe them when they say they do LOL)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
The pts-adjustments are waaay to harsh. The fact that even Thunderkyn (a unit no one has complained about because they where so meh) got hit with a 5ppm increase shows that they have no clue what they're doing and is simply acting in a panic before more events bann LoV. "Nerf everything, quickly!"

The change to autowounds counting as 6s is something I support, BUT with the added change that all the weapons with triggers on 6s to wound instead trigger on 6s to hit. With the new change, these triggers will more or less never procc on units with 3 JTs, which makes no sense from neither a fluff/logical PoV nor a rules PoV.
"We've built up a real grudge against that unit, now our weapons are less powerful!?"

These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed. I predict that LoV will be a low-tier army untill some of them get reverted.

Nobody mentioned Thudnerkyn because there were so many other broken things to worry about, but what is a thunderkyn? its a stronger Gravis Space Marine armed with a +1S and +1AP Heavy bolter as stock. It basically gets AoC on steroids and ignores dense cover when shooting. Yeah I would say those guys are pretty damn good at 40ppm, They aren't as game breaking as other things but christ almighty, they make my 25pt Flashgitz look like grots by comparison

Orks shouldn't be used as a measure of power though because they're so bad right now that I'm surprised it made it through GW's vigorous playtesting (assuming you actually believe them when they say they do LOL)

LOL, fair point in regards to Flashgitz, but compare them to Mairnes and its still the same, a Devastator Marine armed with a heavy bolter is 28ppm, He is -1S, -1T, -1W, -1A his weapon is Heavy3 to the Thunderkyn's HunTR3, the weapon is also -1S and -1AP. So 12pts gets the Thunderkyn a lot of advantages over that Heavy Bolter Devastator. Naturally being able to ignore Dense cover is awesome for example

I'm just pointing out that yeah Thunderkyn aren't as ridiculous as auto 6s to wound and spillover dmg from huge weapons but they were still ridiculous at 35ppm.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

Au contraire, maybee gw will reign it's bs in even more if they fear for their$£€¥chf,etc

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

It doesn't need to do anything NOW, it needs to do something in the future. Instead of being "ooooh shiny must buy", think further ahead. I WANT them to lose money on this because they fethed up and deserve it. Stop defending GW.

 Dysartes wrote:

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

There are three good reasons why that's not the case.

1. Votann is even more busted

2. Nobody has existing Votann armies

3. Eventually you gotta say enough is enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Leagues already getting hit with nerfs: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/29/leagues-of-votann-balance-update-a-word-from-james-workshop/

Also, looks like I was right on the money in terms of how timeline effects balance (that or GW was browsing on dakka and saw my post and said "yeah, thats a good excuse!").

Almost certainly the latter lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
It is worth to note that from the way GW described their method of testing the rules for their later in edition armies, the Tyranids and Eldar were designed to coexist with armies like LoV. Yet somehow there was no planet wide call for bans of those factions, even if they were just or more broken the LoV. It is a double standard, and it will create a situation where some factions are more privilaged then others and just allowed to be broken, while others won't.

It's not a double standard, but keep on with your roleplaying like you hate balance.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

It doesn't need to do anything NOW, it needs to do something in the future. Instead of being "ooooh shiny must buy", think further ahead. I WANT them to lose money on this because they fethed up and deserve it. Stop defending GW.

I like how not taking the most extreme stance is considered defending GW.

Karol wrote:
The problem is the trickle down to stores, store events and regular games, where people suddenly didn't go with the prior talk about waiting for meta to adjust, something they often said when their armies were OP, but to no playing for you till GW nerfs the faction.

That's the responsibility of regular players.

And no, Votann players are not entitled to unearned wins with a broken codex. Votann players should have been very reticent to bust that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I like how not taking the most extreme stance is considered defending GW.

You defend GW past the point of reason fairly frequently though.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
The problem is the trickle down to stores, store events and regular games, where people suddenly didn't go with the prior talk about waiting for meta to adjust, something they often said when their armies were OP, but to no playing for you till GW nerfs the faction.

That's the responsibility of regular players.

And no, Votann players are not entitled to unearned wins with a broken codex. Votann players should have been very reticent to bust that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I like how not taking the most extreme stance is considered defending GW.

You defend GW past the point of reason fairly frequently though.

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force anyway.

They definitely needed a kick into touch, I don't think anyone seriously suggested otherwise, no debate there, but there has been 0 harm done to any events or meta and there reasonably wouldn't have been for nearly 2 months.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

It doesn't need to do anything NOW, it needs to do something in the future. Instead of being "ooooh shiny must buy", think further ahead. I WANT them to lose money on this because they fethed up and deserve it. Stop defending GW.

I like how not taking the most extreme stance is considered defending GW.

"GW did not even the bare minimum so we should give them money still" is not a middle ground. Either you think they should pay for a mistake they keep making or not.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

It doesn't need to do anything NOW, it needs to do something in the future. Instead of being "ooooh shiny must buy", think further ahead. I WANT them to lose money on this because they fethed up and deserve it. Stop defending GW.

I like how not taking the most extreme stance is considered defending GW.

"GW did not even the bare minimum so we should give them money still" is not a middle ground. Either you think they should pay for a mistake they keep making or not.

What do you want them to do exactly? What circumstance will result you in thinking it's ok for someone to have Votann force and attend an event here? If they've fixed the main issues (remains to be seen) before the army is widely released how do you justify punishing them financially? How are you going to punish them by telling people to not buy something they can't buy?

Hecaton wrote:
You defend GW past the point of reason fairly frequently though.

That you think so tells me more about how you think than it does about how I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
"GW did not even the bare minimum so we should give them money still" is not a middle ground. Either you think they should pay for a mistake they keep making or not.

I literally said don't buy the book, but you think I'm advocating giving them money still.

You guys need to get out more.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I actually think we need to continue with the ban/boycott to prove a point

No, I think the point is made with the customer now. Don't buy a book that is out of date so quickly. Banning doesn't do anything helpful now.

It doesn't need to do anything NOW, it needs to do something in the future. Instead of being "ooooh shiny must buy", think further ahead. I WANT them to lose money on this because they fethed up and deserve it. Stop defending GW.

I like how not taking the most extreme stance is considered defending GW.

"GW did not even the bare minimum so we should give them money still" is not a middle ground. Either you think they should pay for a mistake they keep making or not.

What do you want them to do exactly? What circumstance will result you in thinking it's ok for someone to have Votann force and attend an event here? If they've fixed the main issues (remains to be seen) before the army is widely released how do you justify punishing them financially? How are you going to punish them by telling people to not buy something they can't buy?

Maybe a year or so. So not too long for punishing them.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
The pts-adjustments are waaay to harsh. The fact that even Thunderkyn (a unit no one has complained about because they where so meh) got hit with a 5ppm increase shows that they have no clue what they're doing and is simply acting in a panic before more events bann LoV. "Nerf everything, quickly!"

The change to autowounds counting as 6s is something I support, BUT with the added change that all the weapons with triggers on 6s to wound instead trigger on 6s to hit. With the new change, these triggers will more or less never procc on units with 3 JTs, which makes no sense from neither a fluff/logical PoV nor a rules PoV.
"We've built up a real grudge against that unit, now our weapons are less powerful!?"

These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed. I predict that LoV will be a low-tier army untill some of them get reverted.

Nobody mentioned Thudnerkyn because there were so many other broken things to worry about, but what is a thunderkyn? its a stronger Gravis Space Marine armed with a +1S and +1AP Heavy bolter as stock. It basically gets AoC on steroids and ignores dense cover when shooting. Yeah I would say those guys are pretty damn good at 40ppm, They aren't as game breaking as other things but christ almighty, they make my 25pt Flashgitz look like grots by comparison

Orks shouldn't be used as a measure of power though because they're so bad right now that I'm surprised it made it through GW's vigorous playtesting (assuming you actually believe them when they say they do LOL)

LOL, fair point in regards to Flashgitz, but compare them to Mairnes and its still the same, a Devastator Marine armed with a heavy bolter is 28ppm, He is -1S, -1T, -1W, -1A his weapon is Heavy3 to the Thunderkyn's HunTR3, the weapon is also -1S and -1AP. So 12pts gets the Thunderkyn a lot of advantages over that Heavy Bolter Devastator. Naturally being able to ignore Dense cover is awesome for example

I'm just pointing out that yeah Thunderkyn aren't as ridiculous as auto 6s to wound and spillover dmg from huge weapons but they were still ridiculous at 35ppm.

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

God I'm glad I don't play the tournament scene anymore. Reading here has made me understand society and 2020 so much better.

 Da-Rock wrote:
God I'm glad I don't play the tournament scene anymore. Reading here has made me understand society and 2020 so much better.

gakky balance affects everyone, or are you saying you'd purposely not pick the rail weapons to benefit from Grudge token wounding?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
The pts-adjustments are waaay to harsh. The fact that even Thunderkyn (a unit no one has complained about because they where so meh) got hit with a 5ppm increase shows that they have no clue what they're doing and is simply acting in a panic before more events bann LoV. "Nerf everything, quickly!"

The change to autowounds counting as 6s is something I support, BUT with the added change that all the weapons with triggers on 6s to wound instead trigger on 6s to hit. With the new change, these triggers will more or less never procc on units with 3 JTs, which makes no sense from neither a fluff/logical PoV nor a rules PoV.
"We've built up a real grudge against that unit, now our weapons are less powerful!?"

These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed. I predict that LoV will be a low-tier army untill some of them get reverted.

Nobody mentioned Thudnerkyn because there were so many other broken things to worry about, but what is a thunderkyn? its a stronger Gravis Space Marine armed with a +1S and +1AP Heavy bolter as stock. It basically gets AoC on steroids and ignores dense cover when shooting. Yeah I would say those guys are pretty damn good at 40ppm, They aren't as game breaking as other things but christ almighty, they make my 25pt Flashgitz look like grots by comparison

Orks shouldn't be used as a measure of power though because they're so bad right now that I'm surprised it made it through GW's vigorous playtesting (assuming you actually believe them when they say they do LOL)

LOL, fair point in regards to Flashgitz, but compare them to Mairnes and its still the same, a Devastator Marine armed with a heavy bolter is 28ppm, He is -1S, -1T, -1W, -1A his weapon is Heavy3 to the Thunderkyn's HunTR3, the weapon is also -1S and -1AP. So 12pts gets the Thunderkyn a lot of advantages over that Heavy Bolter Devastator. Naturally being able to ignore Dense cover is awesome for example

I'm just pointing out that yeah Thunderkyn aren't as ridiculous as auto 6s to wound and spillover dmg from huge weapons but they were still ridiculous at 35ppm.

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

I LOL at the notion that you give Havocs are faster because they literally only have 1" more movement.

^It's small, but when it's 5 vs 6 it's 20%, and it does occasionally matter.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's small, but when it's 5 vs 6 it's 20%, and it does occasionally matter.

Not on small boards with long range guns.

 Dysartes wrote:

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

1) They should've done so.

2) Votann was about to drop another Tyranid-style grenade on the game just when it seemed like it almost got playable for maybe the first time in 2 years.

3) Isn't it great people finally grew some balls and aren't bending over no matter what GW does? Hopefully the scene will be more vocal about such issues in the future too.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's small, but when it's 5 vs 6 it's 20%, and it does occasionally matter.

Not on small boards with long range guns.

Thunderkyn can move a maximum of 8".
Havocs can move a maximum of 12".

If you don't see the value in that extra movement in a game of objectives, I honestly don't know what to say.

Does anyone bring Autocannon Havocs?

I think its fair to say Thunderkyn are not good, and didn't need the points hike to be made even worse. But equally they do have all these soft-stat upgrades over comparable units, and should therefore pay something for them.

Basically if Thunderkyn are not good at 35/40 points, HB Devs & Flashgitz etc are terrible at their points level. Which they are. But fixing one faction's units and not the wider game is the nature of creep.

 MinscS2 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's small, but when it's 5 vs 6 it's 20%, and it does occasionally matter.

Not on small boards with long range guns.

Thunderkyn can move a maximum of 8".
Havocs can move a maximum of 12".

If you don't see the value in that extra movement in a game of objectives, I honestly don't know what to say.

You mean the objectives other units are already holding? Yeah no, but keep pretending Thunderkyn are fine I guess.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

No, the comparison was fine, you just didn't like it because it was against a faction which has been around for awhile as opposed to one that just had their codex drop. But even against the havocs you chose to leave out the entire judgement token shenanigans which directly BUFF thunderkyn giving them auto-wounds on 4-6 to hit, and most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them. And movement/CC is kinda irrelevant. 1 if you are relying on movement on a slow unit to cap an objective, you already failed. Its a nice to have option but not important to their primary role. and 2, in CC...yeah no, they are both dead as soon as they get in CC against anything remotely good at CC. 16 attacks at S4 no Ap isn't much better than 6 attacks at S5 no AP. Put into perspective, against a SM Profile the Havocs do 1.7dmg and the Thunderkyn do 0.9 OMG that is almost twice as much! 10 Ork boyz without buffs, without kulture without anything at all do 3.6dmg and they do that at 80pts not 120. So bringing up CC as if it was important is silly at best, disingenuous at worst.

To put it bluntly, thunderkyn are better, especially with synergy into their faction as opposed to havocs who kinda stink atm. Not saying Thunderkyn are broken, but compare them to factions older than 6 months and you realize they are head and shoulders better than everyone's similar units.

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

No, the comparison was fine, you just didn't like it because it was against a faction which has been around for awhile as opposed to one that just had their codex drop. But even against the havocs you chose to leave out the entire judgement token shenanigans which directly BUFF thunderkyn giving them auto-wounds on 4-6 to hit, and most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them. And movement/CC is kinda irrelevant. 1 if you are relying on movement on a slow unit to cap an objective, you already failed. Its a nice to have option but not important to their primary role. and 2, in CC...yeah no, they are both dead as soon as they get in CC against anything remotely good at CC. 16 attacks at S4 no Ap isn't much better than 6 attacks at S5 no AP. Put into perspective, against a SM Profile the Havocs do 1.7dmg and the Thunderkyn do 0.9 OMG that is almost twice as much! 10 Ork boyz without buffs, without kulture without anything at all do 3.6dmg and they do that at 80pts not 120. So bringing up CC as if it was important is silly at best, disingenuous at worst.

To put it bluntly, thunderkyn are better, especially with synergy into their faction as opposed to havocs who kinda stink atm. Not saying Thunderkyn are broken, but compare them to factions older than 6 months and you realize they are head and shoulders better than everyone's similar units.

Good points about Havoc being better then Thunder'kyn I think tbh.

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

Ah yes, because the exploding hits just for the first turn on Havocs is so much more relevant than the Grudge tokens LOL

Asenion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

Your comparison is flawed, you're comparing to a unit who can have several ablative wounds to one that can not.
And a 12 ppm difference between models is huge, so you're really comparing apples to oranges.

A better comparison would be Thunderkyn to Havocs;
3 Thunderkyn with Boltcannon: 105/120 points. 9 T5 wounds spread out on 3 models, 9 S6 AP2 D2 shots at 36"
5 Havocs with Havoc Autocannons: 125 points, 10 T5 wounds spread out on 5 models, 8 S7 AP2 D2 shots at 48" + 2 boltershots at 24".

Both can move and fire without penalty.
Thunderkyn ignore dense and can't be re-rolled to wound at.
Havocs are faster, harder to kill (5x2 > 3x3), shoot slightly better, have 2 ablative wounds and have more punch in close combat if they end up there.
I'd say for 120 points, the Havocs are a nobrainer choice at 5 points more.

To quote Auspex Tactics in his latest video about the LoV balance patch: "If there was ever a unit in the codex they probably could've left alone I think it was them", speaking about the Thunderkyn.

No, the comparison was fine, you just didn't like it because it was against a faction which has been around for awhile as opposed to one that just had their codex drop. But even against the havocs you chose to leave out the entire judgement token shenanigans which directly BUFF thunderkyn giving them auto-wounds on 4-6 to hit, and most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them. And movement/CC is kinda irrelevant. 1 if you are relying on movement on a slow unit to cap an objective, you already failed. Its a nice to have option but not important to their primary role. and 2, in CC...yeah no, they are both dead as soon as they get in CC against anything remotely good at CC. 16 attacks at S4 no Ap isn't much better than 6 attacks at S5 no AP. Put into perspective, against a SM Profile the Havocs do 1.7dmg and the Thunderkyn do 0.9 OMG that is almost twice as much! 10 Ork boyz without buffs, without kulture without anything at all do 3.6dmg and they do that at 80pts not 120. So bringing up CC as if it was important is silly at best, disingenuous at worst.

To put it bluntly, thunderkyn are better, especially with synergy into their faction as opposed to havocs who kinda stink atm. Not saying Thunderkyn are broken, but compare them to factions older than 6 months and you realize they are head and shoulders better than everyone's similar units.

Good points about Havoc being better then Thunder'kyn I think tbh.

I see Thunderkyn as trash no matter what, its just Shuriken Cannons on 5" move guys. Sure they are tank y ish. But you can also have a Voidweaver for the same cost..... Over all less wounds but just as tanky if not more so (if you can't hit you can't wound, 4++/-1/no rr hits) it also moves 16-22" with fly, and instead of 3 shurikens its 2 + a Pcanon.

Oh and if you say "Well it can have a good Grav' yes at 18", and if you say Beam, well that means they are now 45ppm and worst just than Eradicators outside the range. Yes they can auto wound, but with 3 shots at ap2 thats kind of meh, and you want to be within 15" so meaning you dont care that its 30" range.

Heck, Eliminators are 75pts (a little less tanky, less wounds and toughness but +2 to saves in cover) and has 3 str 8 -3 3D shots, sure Beam can ht more units but at str7 -2, so less likely to kill things but at +55% the cost lol.

Looks like a lot of players who splurged on the new toys are just upset they got relatively toned down before release. Thunderkyn are directly comparable to a host of units and are usually better than them. But apparently that doesn't matter

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

Your refusal to engage looks like admitting that you show a lack of understanding of the codex in question.

Hecaton wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
(...)most units in the game are going to have at least 2 tokens on them before thunderkyn shoot at them(...)

And I'm out, no point in discussing this further.

Your refusal to engage looks like admitting that you show a lack of understanding of the codex in question.

When someone assumes that "every unit will have at least 2 JTs before before you shoot at them" and base their entire argument around it, that shows a lack of understanding of the codex in question, I agree.
At that point there really is no point in discussing it further, because you are basing your entire argument around false premises and you are unlikely to change your opinion.

Maybe Thurians are less obviously the way to play after the changes - but when 1 JT=2, I don't think getting 2 on whatever you want dead that turn is especially unlikely.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

you want to be within 15" so meaning you dont care that its 30" range.

No you want to be outside of 15", to get double hits

The quick ban from tournaments, provided it was for the reason that it's 'busted', was an absolutely horrible precedent.

I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

The points hike likely killed half the army competitively alongside breaking all their synergy, so hopefully the ridiculous hysteria can die down and they can all go back to whining about Bloody Rose or something.

 Vilgeir wrote:
The quick ban from tournaments, provided it was for the reason that it's 'busted', was an absolutely horrible precedent.

I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

The points hike likely killed half the army competitively alongside breaking all their synergy, so hopefully the ridiculous hysteria can die down and they can all go back to whining about Bloody Rose or something.

Funny you would say that when its actually precedent that lead to the 'quick ban'. Namely the precedent in WTC that all codexes are banned until their initial faq.

Failing to mention that the ban was perfectly normal doesn't make for interesting clickbait articles to feed the internet drama machine tho.

"OMG Votaan banned. Like every other codex before it" doesn't have quite the same ring.

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vilgeir wrote:
The quick ban from tournaments, provided it was for the reason that it's 'busted', was an absolutely horrible precedent.

I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

The points hike likely killed half the army competitively alongside breaking all their synergy, so hopefully the ridiculous hysteria can die down and they can all go back to whining about Bloody Rose or something.

You realize right the votann were found to be busted in real games?

But yea. Votann plavers salty now they can't autowln with busted asmy. Damn crybabies.

 Vilgeir wrote:
I sincerely hope the swift nerfs were a coincidence because caving to the temper tantrums of literal man babies is a poor decision.

Such man babies, who want their game to be decided by wits and not codex writers...

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

Interesting. How many events have you been to? I've been to several, and seen many, that I would consider well managed and proxies, recasts, etc. are rarely an issue.

 Rihgu wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

Interesting. How many events have you been to? I've been to several, and seen many, that I would consider well managed and proxies, recasts, etc. are rarely an issue.

Sorry, this is in the context of "the ban robbed GW of sales", if people are 3d printing an army then they're by definition proxies at this stage due to the kits not existing. Most events usually want proxies etc to be checked beforehand. I've not been to many but conversions/proxies are generally asked to be checked before games kick off/at list submission.

I find it hard to believe that GW could ban people from playing with OG squat models as "counts as" which are practically indistinguishable from 3d printed models at this point.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I find it hard to believe that GW could ban people from playing with OG squat models as "counts as" which are practically indistinguishable from 3d printed models at this point.

They would still need to ask first though. Plus imo if you're printing out 30 year old sculpts for any reason other than liking those specific aesthetics you're doing it wrong.

I have to say though fezzik it does seem more like you're trying really hard to justify 3d printing your armies rather than actually addressing the topic.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I find it hard to believe that GW could ban people from playing with OG squat models as "counts as" which are practically indistinguishable from 3d printed models at this point.

Many models from that age are quite likely to not be allowed at GTs though, so banning squats from counting as completely different units doesn't seem that unbelievable to me.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

You act like there were no 3rd party companies offering space dwarves. The only thing new is GW offering rules and badly written ones at that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

There are no Votann players at present, unless someone bought 3 of the army box and has been assembling and painting like a maniac, in which case they have a seriously limited force

Or have this thing called 3d printer.

Good luck turning up to any well managed event with an army entirely made of proxies or clearly ip stolen minis.

Plus if these are the people you were worried about then it hasn't actually impacted GW at all having a ban.

You act like there were no 3rd party companies offering space dwarves. The only thing new is GW offering rules and badly written ones at that.

I'm not at all, again, if you want to rock up to a tournament with a full army when you can't even buy the units, it'll all be proxies anyway. I.e. not GW minis, so those people being banned didn't hurt GW.

Dudeface wrote:
\
If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

Only if it's sold or distributed. In order for theft to occur you have to take something from someone else. At least in my country.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
\
If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

Only if it's sold or distributed. In order for theft to occur you have to take something from someone else. At least in my country.

This concept of 'IP theft' is a purely fanboi invention to justify indignation at people not buying gws models but still playing the game.

GW is just as guilty of the same definition 'ip theft' as used here. By the definition of 'reinvention' above, space marines are proxies of storm troopers from star wars as that's what they were based on when they were first designed.

The only thing that legally protects these are TM or copyright infringment, neither of which cover 'ip theft' as it is used here.

Scanning a land fortress and printing it would be copyright infringment - the protection of copying. But someone that scults their own model that looks the same has still made their own model, they can't use any TMs to describe it, but they aren't prevented from making space amour, space swords, NASA rover tanks etc.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

And pretty much no tournament I have gone(make that no tournament) has issue with non-official.

Big wheeled vehicle with big gun and dwarven runes. TO's won't have issue. And if it's not obvious to the opponent what vehicle it is then the opponent is unlikely to be able to play 40k anyway

I don't really care for the technicalities of 3d print legality. My was and is: people who were going to 3d print a votann army because they were op are the only ones who have been immediately impacted by any votann ban in place thus far, in which case GW won't give a rats ass because they wouldn't have sold them anything anyway.

Personal opinion is a proxy army of 3d printed sculpts are fine, 1:1 copies are not, simple as that. Support the amateur and minor sculptors.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we stop saying printing minis is IP theft? That's tantamount to calling Wierd Al a Song thief.

He completely reinvents the song, as most 3d printed minis are complete re-inventions of the sourced material. You know that most are not 1-1 copies, right? That's called "Resin molding" and is actually illegal because it is actual copying for profit.

What the majority of 3d printed STLs are these days are clearly knockoffs. Ala going to a street vendor in NY and buying a Rollex watch. It's clearly a rip off cheap Rolex, as no one would sell Rolex with real diamonds for 20$ on a street corner.

That space Marine Terminator off the STL website is a refashioned model of a very old design, that is often no longer in print.

If they're printing out a 1:1 land fortress, ip theft has been conducted. If it's a "reinvention" it's a proxy. Both would at the minimum need checking with the event organiser. Which is what I said.

And pretty much no tournament I have gone(make that no tournament) has issue with non-official.

Big wheeled vehicle with big gun and dwarven runes. TO's won't have issue. And if it's not obvious to the opponent what vehicle it is then the opponent is unlikely to be able to play 40k anyway

Proxies and conversions are usually fine at most tournaments, especially non-GW ones. The only slight issue with the Land Fortress is similar to the problem that befell the Ork Kill Rig: it's a brand new model so we don't have anything to compare a proxy to for size. I can see tournaments banning proxies for LoV vehicles for that reason, at least until they are released.

I think it's less likely you'd see proxies of the various unreleased infantry banned, assuming the proxy was at least vaguely representative of the unit.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't really care for the technicalities of 3d print legality. My was and is: people who were going to 3d print a votann army because they were op are the only ones who have been immediately impacted by any votann ban in place thus far, in which case GW won't give a rats ass because they wouldn't have sold them anything anyway.

Personal opinion is a proxy army of 3d printed sculpts are fine, 1:1 copies are not, simple as that. Support the amateur and minor sculptors.

Point being ban will result in lost sales anyway as people aren't buying army they can't play. Some 3d printing doesn't mean all print so reducing customer pool due to book being banned bad for sales.

Also point is saying votann haven't been proven broken as they cant be Played yet due to no models available　is flat out deliberate lying. There's multiple ways to play them, they have been played and it's been bad.

tneva82 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't really care for the technicalities of 3d print legality. My was and is: people who were going to 3d print a votann army because they were op are the only ones who have been immediately impacted by any votann ban in place thus far, in which case GW won't give a rats ass because they wouldn't have sold them anything anyway.

Personal opinion is a proxy army of 3d printed sculpts are fine, 1:1 copies are not, simple as that. Support the amateur and minor sculptors.

Point being ban will result in lost sales anyway as people aren't buying army they can't play. Some 3d printing doesn't mean all print so reducing customer pool due to book being banned bad for sales.

Also point is saying votann haven't been proven broken as they cant be Played yet due to no models available　is flat out deliberate lying. There's multiple ways to play them, they have been played and it's been bad.

You're missing the point, a ban of something you can't actually buy will not prevent people from buying it. The only people banned at present are people who wouldn't gove GW money anyway. If the ban were still in place when the individual kits release (who knows atm) then you'd be right.

Regards the play data, please provide me some quantified data that GW can use to make the balance changes against. You know they need nerfing, I know they need nerfing, but nobody can actually provide that data because they've been at 0 events to produce quantified official results.

tneva82 wrote:
There's multiple ways to play them, they have been played and it's been bad.

by now there is no way to play them with the official models or rules as those are sold out in most regions

so until the regular release a bann does not chance things for most people as they cannot buy it anyway, hence they cannot play it, hence it does not matter if an event allows them or not

Twilight Pathways wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

you want to be within 15" so meaning you dont care that its 30" range.

No you want to be outside of 15", to get double hits

Your right I missed remember, most likely bc they are bad and I dont want to pay 45ppm for them when you see units like Eliminators are 75pts, sure blah blah beam can hit another unit, Or I could also just take a 2nd unit with more shots in general and body presence at the cost of 15pts difference lol.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
3x 230 = 690 points of vehicles (plus buff characters) to kill maybe 350 points of Terminators doesn't sound great.

It shouldn't take any army in the game more then 350 points of their army to kill an opponents 350 points of models if they sit in the open.

This is not true. Terminators are supposed to be walking tanks developed from suits used to work on plasma reactors. Guardsmen infantry with Lasguns should in no way be able to take out Terminators. Vehicle level threats should require anti-vehicle weapons to realistically and regularly harm them. Having that kind of requirement is what helps balance the game with TAC lists as opposed to drowning the opponent in bodies and crap weapons.

 purplkrush wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
3x 230 = 690 points of vehicles (plus buff characters) to kill maybe 350 points of Terminators doesn't sound great.

It shouldn't take any army in the game more then 350 points of their army to kill an opponents 350 points of models if they sit in the open.

This is not true. Terminators are supposed to be walking tanks developed from suits used to work on plasma reactors. Guardsmen infantry with Lasguns should in no way be able to take out Terminators. Vehicle level threats should require anti-vehicle weapons to realistically and regularly harm them. Having that kind of requirement is what helps balance the game with TAC lists as opposed to drowning the opponent in bodies and crap weapons.

their ridiculous statement was answered a while ago with many people agreeing with you.
but while were back to talking about termis being vehicle levels of tanky, we need to make vehicles closer to them.
Give heavy vehicles a 1+ save (land raider/repulsor)
Give regular vehicles a 2+ save (rhino chassis)
Give light vehicles a 3+ save (land speeder)
increase the wounds for all of them