Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 03:14:11


Post by: Cj4594


My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.

It has a 2+ save, toughness 8, ignores one point of ap, 16 wounds, and you can't re-roll wound rolls or damage against it. It has the equivalent of 4 heavy bolters, with +1 str and +1 ap, and the magna gun which does like 8-12 damage and ignores invulns. With a character, you can heal 4 wounds a turn and make it hits on 2s. It also works really well with judgement tokens because it makes it auto-wound on a 4+ with 3 tokens (Which I found were realllly easy to deal out) and the auto-wound is a 6 which makes the damage on the gun spill over and kill multiple models. He was reliably killing 3-5 terminators per turn with each land fortress, which he took 3 of.

At 230 points, it's pointed like a Leman Russ Tank Commander, but it's just way better: It's tougher, and it hits way harder. Even he agreed the thing was massively undercosted for what it did.

Edit: They're also transports, so you can make a Pentagon Wars joke about them.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 03:44:29


Post by: tneva82


Well every codex has it's op undercosted unit.

Though it's not tank commander priced being almost 33% as pricey.

But yeah gw army has op unit. Sun is hot.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 04:26:15


Post by: ccs


Spoiler:
Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.

It has a 2+ save, toughness 8, ignores one point of ap, 16 wounds, and you can't re-roll wound rolls or damage against it. It has the equivalent of 4 heavy bolters, with +1 str and +1 ap, and the magna gun which does like 8-12 damage and ignores invulns. With a character, you can heal 4 wounds a turn and make it hits on 2s. It also works really well with judgement tokens because it makes it auto-wound on a 4+ with 3 tokens (Which I found were realllly easy to deal out) and the auto-wound is a 6 which makes the damage on the gun spill over and kill multiple models. He was reliably killing 3-5 terminators per turn with each land fortress, which he took 3 of.

At 230 points, it's pointed like a Leman Russ Tank Commander, but it's just way better: It's tougher, and it hits way harder. Even he agreed the thing was massively undercosted for what it did.

Edit: They're also transports, so you can make a Pentagon Wars joke about them.


So.... this is a sales pitch for the model?



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 05:02:42


Post by: Lord Damocles


I'm sure that the big centrepiece model being OP is just a Wraithknight. Coincidence! I meant to type coincidence. Weird typo there...


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 07:02:12


Post by: Racerguy180


So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 08:03:19


Post by: Tiberias


Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 08:33:01


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 10:10:13


Post by: Jidmah


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


Yup, sound a bout right.

A landraider isn't just 230 though.

Neither are the Monolith or a Morkanaut, by the way.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 10:34:53


Post by: Amishprn86


 Jidmah wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


Yup, sound a bout right.

A landraider isn't just 230 though.

Neither are the Monolith or a Morkanaut, by the way.


And most people are asking for it to be cheaper than it is now, so 230pts wounds far to me for a Land Raider.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 11:02:51


Post by: wuestenfux


Is it really a problem model?
Codex creeping is a natural phenomenon so that such units pop up not unexpectedly.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 11:23:54


Post by: Jidmah


 Amishprn86 wrote:
And most people are asking for it to be cheaper than it is now, so 230pts wounds far to me for a Land Raider.


Depends on whether we are talking about the CSM variant or an of the previous ones IMO. And it's not like the fortress doesn't have a ton of rules stacked on top of it that the LR doesn't get.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 11:50:26


Post by: Amishprn86


 Jidmah wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
And most people are asking for it to be cheaper than it is now, so 230pts wounds far to me for a Land Raider.


Depends on whether we are talking about the CSM variant or an of the previous ones IMO. And it's not like the fortress doesn't have a ton of rules stacked on top of it that the LR doesn't get.


Well Loyalist for now, also does the Land Raider not have a stack tone of rules too? It still has AoC, BD, and Docs, still has the ability of a Tech marine to heal 3, etc.... it just needs to be cheaper, something like 220pts is what I would value it at. The Fortress I'd say is a little under costed (15-20pts) but the Land Raider is massively over costed (imo by 40-45pts over costed).

What the actual issue is Beam only needs to roll to wound additional targets instead of needing to hit and wound. With the ability to almost auto hit 1 Fortress, and re-rolls the other, you can auto wound an additional 3-4 targets.

PS, also it is still too early to tell but it really feels like you can spread Judgement tokens a bit too easily and maybe 1 token per turn fall off might be a good balance too. Because honestly its already a low model/wound count army and going up points would hurt them in the bad way of balancing things. If anything their troops needs to go down, judgement and beam changes. The more I see them, test them, see them tested, etc..., the more you just take 2 Patrols, or a Patrol and specialist detachment (Outrider or Spearhead) and ignore the troops completely, as they can gain CP easily too, so starting with -2CP isn't a bad thing.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 12:03:10


Post by: Jidmah


Well, the DG landraider has... *checks rules* AoC and contagions.

No re-rolls is also not be underestimated, against armies relying on character auras or "re-roll one hit or wound roll" army traits, this is a massive boost in survivability, and it's not even a limited range thing as it is for Mortarion.

I'm also absolutely not judging the fortress right now - I need more data or see it in action myself first, it's much too soo for that.
I'm just saying that other units in the same weight class should cost the same as the fortress, no matter whether it goes up, the others go down, or they meet somewhere in the middle.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 12:20:46


Post by: Amishprn86


 Jidmah wrote:
Well, the DG landraider has... *checks rules* AoC and contagions.

No re-rolls is also not be underestimated, against armies relying on character auras or "re-roll one hit or wound roll" army traits, this is a massive boost in survivability, and it's not even a limited range thing as it is for Mortarion.

I'm also absolutely not judging the fortress right now - I need more data or see it in action myself first, it's much too soo for that.
I'm just saying that other units in the same weight class should cost the same as the fortress, no matter whether it goes up, the others go down, or they meet somewhere in the middle.


Honestly, its the Forge Master (Whatever its called its a WLT for the Iron-master, aka Techmarine equal) making it good. Heal 4 per turn and once a game to stop 1 damage roll (aka a Melta, Pcannon, Lance, Hammerhead) is why its hard to kill, not really the +/AoC/no rrw's, without the Forge-master it dies just as fast as a Land Raider. But for 105pts for basically doubling it health/toughness, its literally equal to kill 2 for 1 to die.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 14:21:35


Post by: NoiseMarine with Tinnitus


Most codexes have that one go-to unit which is an auto take pretty much.

I am sure if it proves to be problematic the nerf bat will hit it.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 17:26:13


Post by: Karol


Well that depends on the faction and how lucky it is. Some armies vide orks had their stuff nerfed hard, while others like lets say all the good GK options were not touched at all or even made better.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 17:42:39


Post by: Twilight Pathways


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


Er, 4 lascannon shots barely kills 1 exposed terminator, let alone 3


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 18:17:19


Post by: Nevelon


Twilight Pathways wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


Er, 4 lascannon shots barely kills 1 exposed terminator, let alone 3


Don’t forget the HBs and pintle guns. Which probably doesn’t impact the rounding errors.

As we are discussing what land raiders should be like, i’d like to think in an ideal world they would come closer to putting down 3 terminators a round then they are now. The firepower put out by a LR should be feared. Unfortunately, it’s not.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 18:30:47


Post by: Insectum7


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?

Four Lascannon shots, two Multimelta shots, six Heavy Bolter shots, and if you're a true gangsta, an HK Missile and a Storm Bolter.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/07 23:10:57


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
Well that depends on the faction and how lucky it is. Some armies vide orks had their stuff nerfed hard, while others like lets say all the good GK options were not touched at all or even made better.


Most ork nerfs were reverted when GW fixed the problem (indirect fire, planes) instead of the symptom though.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 04:55:31


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


Yup, sound a bout right.

A landraider isn't just 230 though.

Neither are the Monolith or a Morkanaut, by the way.


And most people are asking for it to be cheaper than it is now, so 230pts wounds far to me for a Land Raider.

Pretty much this. It sounds like this thing is a cheaper, better land raider. But land raiders aren't super popular right now (afaik), so there's probably room for improvement before we start wandering into "OP" territory. Maybe it ends up being too good, but I'm not worried just yet. Plus, we're definitely still in that phase where everyone is nervous about the new thing. I remember that thread from a while back about how the new psychic ork vehicle was going to be absurdly over the top, and to my admittedly limited knowledge, those fears didn't really pan out.

Worst case scenario, the new vehicle is too gnarly to enjoy playing against, and I'll just politely turn down games against it.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 05:51:42


Post by: tneva82


Twilight Pathways wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
So it's a LR as it's supposed to be???


A land raider is supposed to kill 3 terminators a turn?


With four Lascannon shots?

Yeah?


Er, 4 lascannon shots barely kills 1 exposed terminator, let alone 3


Note the word "supposed".

His point being it should but doesn't now. Aka land fortress is what land raider should be. Not that land raider is what land fortress to be.

Aka buff land raider, don't nerf land fortress


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 06:53:54


Post by: Sunny Side Up


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.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 07:23:18


Post by: a_typical_hero


Sunny Side Up wrote:
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 mentality is the problem with lethality of the game, though. Being able to take out units with a 100% efficiency on average is bad.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 08:05:45


Post by: tneva82


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.


Yes it should. Actually it should be 3xpoints to one shot.

The "unit must wipe out equal points in one shot" is precisely what leads to alpha striking being so effective, 1-2 turn games and lethality being too high.

If unit can reliably wipe out more than 1/3 of it's points in one go it's too good.

Taking out 100% of it's points in one go is ridiculous. That's basically 2k army one shots enemy army in one go. That's too good. Way too good. Games are then decided by who gets to alpha strike first.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 08:10:30


Post by: ccs


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.


Exactly what's trying to kill what needs to be factored in, not just how many pts it all is.
Just because the pts are equal doesn't mean the units involved are.
For ex; I could throw 4 full squads of grots (360pts), with or without Waagh benefits, at 350 pts of termies & I won't be at all surprised when they fail....


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 08:14:58


Post by: Slipspace


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.

I agree, but not in one single round of shooting. That's far too lethal. Under ideal conditions I'd expect units to earn their points back in 2-3 turns, longer if their opponent does something sensible like using cover.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 08:21:11


Post by: Karol


The 100% points back in a single turn on avarge is true for very few armies. And with how turn structure w40k has, losing 350pts of specific units may mean you are not just playing the game 1650 vs 2000, but also may now lack the units to kill those 690pts of units that kill 350pts per turn. which means phase 2 may end with a 2000-1900pts vs 1300 pts and even fewer units that can try to counter the 690pts of super efficient unit.

But of course when the units are cheaper then 230pts per units, like a 80pts void weaver, it is much worse.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 12:47:05


Post by: Boosykes


Yes the tank is over powered lethality is already way to high.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 15:00:07


Post by: Sunny Side Up


But that is why you have / had so many problems with pre-nerf Custodes or pre-Nerf Bodyguard or non-Reroll Knights or Leviathan Tyranid bricks now maybe buffed up Chaos Terminator units sitting on an objective against some armies and simply not caring as the opponent cannot kill it.

That is an infinitely worse problem then any amount of overtuned lethality as 7th Ed. Deathstars or Broviathan, etc.. have shown, as that immediately and competely removes any tactics, interaction and strategy from the game, allowing players to abandon all subtlty and simply score points without the opponent being able to mathematically stop them.

For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 15:24:57


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Sunny Side Up wrote:

For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.


what? are you being serious here?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 15:43:23


Post by: a_typical_hero


Sunny Side Up wrote:
For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.
No, 40k wasn't that lethal in the past and it worked just fine. Any points of Guardsmen with lasguns couldn't even scratch the paint on any vehicle and it was fun.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 16:04:12


Post by: chaos0xomega


Cj4594 wrote:


Edit: They're also transports, so you can make a Pentagon Wars joke about them.


Too OP, please nerf.

ccs wrote:
Spoiler:
Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
It has a 2+ save, toughness 8, ignores one point of ap, 16 wounds, and you can't re-roll wound rolls or damage against it. It has the equivalent of 4 heavy bolters, with +1 str and +1 ap, and the magna gun which does like 8-12 damage and ignores invulns. With a character, you can heal 4 wounds a turn and make it hits on 2s. It also works really well with judgement tokens because it makes it auto-wound on a 4+ with 3 tokens (Which I found were realllly easy to deal out) and the auto-wound is a 6 which makes the damage on the gun spill over and kill multiple models. He was reliably killing 3-5 terminators per turn with each land fortress, which he took 3 of.
At 230 points, it's pointed like a Leman Russ Tank Commander, but it's just way better: It's tougher, and it hits way harder. Even he agreed the thing was massively undercosted for what it did.
Edit: They're also transports, so you can make a Pentagon Wars joke about them.

So.... this is a sales pitch for the model?


Right? I was only planning to buy 1, but now that you've pitched it so thoroughly, the only reason I'm buying 3 is that rule of 3 stops me from being able to field more.

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.

Your math is (way way way) off. *ONE* Hekaton kills 3-5 termies *per turn*. In a 4 turn game thats 12-20 termies or 480-800 pts worth of terminators... *FOR EACH LAND FORTRESS*. 3 Hekatons for 690 points would be killing 1440-2400 points of terminators per game.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 16:05:36


Post by: tneva82


Sunny Side Up wrote:
But that is why you have / had so many problems with pre-nerf Custodes or pre-Nerf Bodyguard or non-Reroll Knights or Leviathan Tyranid bricks now maybe buffed up Chaos Terminator units sitting on an objective against some armies and simply not caring as the opponent cannot kill it.

That is an infinitely worse problem then any amount of overtuned lethality as 7th Ed. Deathstars or Broviathan, etc.. have shown, as that immediately and competely removes any tactics, interaction and strategy from the game, allowing players to abandon all subtlty and simply score points without the opponent being able to mathematically stop them.

For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.



So 1 turn army wipeout should be possible?

Sorry no. Only noobs think 100% point kill in one turn is good. 1/3 is target. 1/2 is bad. 1/1 is insanely stupid and only exists to sell op models with no regard to health of game.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 16:27:47


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


It depends on the game. In Infinity, you can get way more than 100% in one turn if the enemy is playing badly, but it's meant to be deadly. I don't think it works for 40k. If my enemy is bad, I could run my Avatar through them and get a 300% point return in one turn. The issue is that, if they're not playing bad, they could kill my 130 point Avatar with a 30 point dude that had a good anti armor weapon, like a monofilament weapon, for a 430% return if I'm playing bad.

40k doesn't have the same level and depth for the mechanics, though, and nowhere near as much ability to avoid getting shot.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 17:52:17


Post by: ccs


Sunny Side Up wrote:

For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.


What rubbish.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 18:27:13


Post by: Amishprn86


ccs wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:

For the game to fundamentally work, the toughest unit with the best buffs in the game must aboslutetly, 100% die to the same amount of points from the weakest, least efficient army in the game if it is in the opponent on some objective. Otherwise the basic principles of the game don't work.


What rubbish.


Agree, a tanky unit should be tanky and not die to a single under powered unit, that would actually ruin the game. The point of tank is to give up something (damage, speed, other, etc...) to not die, to soak hits, thats kind of the point of many units like Rhinos and why a lot of vehicles are consider bad bc they have no fire power but also are over costed for how easy they are to be blown off the table.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 20:02:35


Post by: Tyel


I think if two players both select the most glass-cannon build they can, and both sprint into each other, then sure, one side should fall over by the close of turn 2.

To my mind at least if you were running say DG into Necrons, it should be a 5 turn game where you slowly grind each other down - and actually a lot of stuff should still be up turn 5.

The problem with 9th (which has somewhat been reduced in 2022) is that seemingly every army became a glass cannon whether you liked it or not.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/08 22:42:32


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


The problem in my eyes isn't the presence of lethality or survivability itself, but how it's implemented. Currently, the approach is to power up a single unit until it breaks the game balance and then you lay into the enemy force or park on an objective. I'd rather see general defensive buffs (e.g. something like the old AP system, the reintroduction of suppressing fire) and the removal of the super buffing a single unit.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 02:53:29


Post by: Hellebore


The game doesn't take place in one turn, it takes place across multiple turns.

If you're going to use models of x points vs x points, then it should be spread across the whole game.

Otherwise that one unit kills its own points worth of models every turn until the end of the game, making it way too effective.

It's imo one of the problems 3-7 had with the penetration table. Vehicles could be one shot by anything that penetrated them.


Someone mentioned 1/3 points per round and that isn't a bad rule of thumb. If every unit in the game averaged about a third its points value in destruction a round, then the game would be far more balanced.

Advantages that create one shot kills like strategem combos are imo a bad idea.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 03:10:40


Post by: Amishprn86


 Hellebore wrote:
The game doesn't take place in one turn, it takes place across multiple turns.

If you're going to use models of x points vs x points, then it should be spread across the whole game.

Otherwise that one unit kills its own points worth of models every turn until the end of the game, making it way too effective.

It's imo one of the problems 3-7 had with the penetration table. Vehicles could be one shot by anything that penetrated them.


Someone mentioned 1/3 points per round and that isn't a bad rule of thumb. If every unit in the game averaged about a third its points value in destruction a round, then the game would be far more balanced.

Advantages that create one shot kills like strategem combos are imo a bad idea.


I still dont like to give numbers to lethality. What if I wanted an army that was super tough, played the mission well but didn't kill all that well for a few turns bc I want to play the attrition game? I might only kill 1/5 or so a turn, but you wont be able to kill a lot either. That changes the numbers a lot.

Then you have DE with units like RWFs or Reavers, that their entire job is just just get point with no killing power, and you put all your killing power into literally only take a few incubi, a couple characters, and a couple grots for damage, the rest is just paper cuts. Its hard to say X unit should do X, really it should be X unit is design for X and it should do their job within reason of its points cost.

We all know the Land Raider doesn't do ANY of its jobs for its points, yes the Fortress does, but its hard to say if it is too much yet, and honestly if it doesn't die in 3 turns while killing 200pts, is that actually a bad thing? Dont we want the Land Raider type of tanks to live for a few turns and do damage with its guns? Now if it is doing 200pts a damage in a turn, then yeah lets look at it, from what I can see it is not, its 4 shuriken cannons and a couple stronger Las cannons basically (or weaker but Beam). If anything I would want to see the strongest and most popular gun go up in points before the vehicle itself does.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 03:28:03


Post by: Hellebore


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
The game doesn't take place in one turn, it takes place across multiple turns.

If you're going to use models of x points vs x points, then it should be spread across the whole game.

Otherwise that one unit kills its own points worth of models every turn until the end of the game, making it way too effective.

It's imo one of the problems 3-7 had with the penetration table. Vehicles could be one shot by anything that penetrated them.


Someone mentioned 1/3 points per round and that isn't a bad rule of thumb. If every unit in the game averaged about a third its points value in destruction a round, then the game would be far more balanced.

Advantages that create one shot kills like strategem combos are imo a bad idea.


I still dont like to give numbers to lethality. What if I wanted an army that was super tough, played the mission well but didn't kill all that well for a few turns bc I want to play the attrition game? I might only kill 1/5 or so a turn, but you wont be able to kill a lot either. That changes the numbers a lot.

Then you have DE with units like RWFs or Reavers, that their entire job is just just get point with no killing power, and you put all your killing power into literally only take a few incubi, a couple characters, and a couple grots for damage, the rest is just paper cuts. Its hard to say X unit should do X, really it should be X unit is design for X and it should do their job within reason of its points cost.

We all know the Land Raider doesn't do ANY of its jobs for its points, yes the Fortress does, but its hard to say if it is too much yet, and honestly if it doesn't die in 3 turns while killing 200pts, is that actually a bad thing? Dont we want the Land Raider type of tanks to live for a few turns and do damage with its guns? Now if it is doing 200pts a damage in a turn, then yeah lets look at it, from what I can see it is not, its 4 shuriken cannons and a couple stronger Las cannons basically (or weaker but Beam). If anything I would want to see the strongest and most popular gun go up in points before the vehicle itself does.



Yeah you're talking about damage denial, which in the previous model is assumed to be balanced against the 1/3rd points.

But you can also balance a unit with lower damage out put and higher damage denial, making it balance out.

Unit destruction is still the main aspect of the game, regardless of the mission being played. They even changed morale to be damage based rather than activation based, further pushing everything to damage.








League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 14:23:33


Post by: wuestenfux


Boosykes wrote:
Yes the tank is over powered lethality is already way to high.

This is what I like to hear.
Lethal for a limited amount of time.
GW can hear us.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 21:05:14


Post by: Tyel


I think in this case they need to remove magna rail working if you auto-wound with judgement tokens. Although the beam weapon alternate is kind of broken as well - and suspect will be the pivot.

Kind of fell judgement tokens in general a bad idea, as they are going to be really hard to balance.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 21:15:33


Post by: Amishprn86


Tyel wrote:
I think in this case they need to remove magna rail working if you auto-wound with judgement tokens. Although the beam weapon alternate is kind of broken as well - and suspect will be the pivot.

Kind of fell judgement tokens in general a bad idea, as they are going to be really hard to balance.


Honestly I think the army needs 1 rule change and nothing else. At the end of each Battle round remove 1 Judgement Token from each unit.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/09 22:53:50


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I think in this case they need to remove magna rail working if you auto-wound with judgement tokens. Although the beam weapon alternate is kind of broken as well - and suspect will be the pivot.

Kind of fell judgement tokens in general a bad idea, as they are going to be really hard to balance.


Honestly I think the army needs 1 rule change and nothing else. At the end of each Battle round remove 1 Judgement Token from each unit.
Yeah the judgements seem a bit much at the moment. I understand the proliferation of transhuman-esque rules has been a bit much but the answer is to tone them back, not gak on them.

Everything else about this model just seems like it needs to cost more points. Just leave it undercosted long enough for the irrational to have the inch of space needed to do their mental gymnastics.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 00:59:08


Post by: artific3r


If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 03:28:55


Post by: Hecaton


If any unit had to be overpowered I'm cool with it being that one.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 03:34:42


Post by: Rihgu


artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 03:58:12


Post by: Hecaton


 Rihgu wrote:
artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.


What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 05:23:36


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Rihgu wrote:
artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.
That... is just the right amount of terrible idea to be plausible.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 06:23:07


Post by: Karol


Hecaton wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.


What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?


That just like DE were supposed to be balanced by ad mecha and orks, although not the way the players of armies different then those three, the LoV are going to be balanced the same way by upcoming books or maybe they will be balanced by core rules changes, the way 2.0 marines were, in the next edition.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 06:45:21


Post by: Vilgeir


While it is admittedly too early to say for certain, I am not at all convinced the Judgment system is going to be quite the big boogyman most are expecting.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 07:36:01


Post by: Bosskelot


The mangarail isn't even the worst thing about it.

Ymyr Conglomerate with maximum Beam weapons will just be dumping like 10-12 MW's onto targets on top of their normal damage. Oh and the Land Fortress gets a 4++ there too, just in case anything could get past the AOC and 2+.

Even outside of the obvious overcosting it's yet another instance of subfaction rules really not being thought out well-enough and having such strong bonuses they warp everything in the codex around them. This has been a consistent issue ever since late 8th. Berzerks are absolutely undercosted at 22ppm already, but giving them a 5++ on top of that is just true insanity. But like I said, this is a consistent issue across multiple books; Bloody Rose has insane buffs for what is already a very CC focused faction so it just makes it the practical default choice while also leading to several units feeling insanely undercosted when taken as Bloody Rose; because they've been priced assuming some subfactionless baseline. The Marine books are all just huge messes because depending on supplement a somewhat innocuous unit could be getting an insane chapter tactic + an insane superdoctrine that just magnifies its power into the stratosphere. The 5 main Craftworlds all actually have really well thought-out subfaction rules, Biel-Tan and Ulthwe are obviously the best, but they aren't so powerfully warping to negatively effect the rest of the codex.... except that Hail of Doom custom exists which is such a gigantic power boost to what are already the only cost-efficient units in the codex that it is still the best choice and makes some of those units feel undercosted (even though outside of that custom trait they are not).


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 10:43:19


Post by: Vilgeir


 Bosskelot wrote:

Even outside of the obvious overcosting it's yet another instance of subfaction rules really not being thought out well-enough and having such strong bonuses they warp everything in the codex around them. This has been a consistent issue ever since late 8th. Berzerks are absolutely undercosted at 22ppm already, but giving them a 5++ on top of that is just true insanity. But like I said, this is a consistent issue across multiple books; Bloody Rose has insane buffs for what is already a very CC focused faction so it just makes it the practical default choice while also leading to several units feeling insanely undercosted when taken as Bloody Rose; because they've been priced assuming some subfactionless baseline. The Marine books are all just huge messes because depending on supplement a somewhat innocuous unit could be getting an insane chapter tactic + an insane superdoctrine that just magnifies its power into the stratosphere. The 5 main Craftworlds all actually have really well thought-out subfaction rules, Biel-Tan and Ulthwe are obviously the best, but they aren't so powerfully warping to negatively effect the rest of the codex.... except that Hail of Doom custom exists which is such a gigantic power boost to what are already the only cost-efficient units in the codex that it is still the best choice and makes some of those units feel undercosted (even though outside of that custom trait they are not).


You seem to focus heavily on Ymyr here when talking about Beserks without considering how disgusting they'll be in Kronus, which all but makes them Bloody Rose Repentia. Repentia are great units, but they are made crazy powerful from Quick to Anger, Tear Them Down, Sacred Rites, and being able to fight on death all stacking together to give them some disgusting buffs - many of which are exactly the same things that make BR Repentia so damn oppressive. Kronus gives you all of that on more durable models that can get that 5++ just by being near a Kahl anyway.

I feel like Ymyr's army wide invuln benefit is a trap. The ones that get a 4++ save are the 2+ units with Void Armour, so your opponent has to put AP -4 into them for you to have even seen a benefit there, and that goes to AP -5 when the unit is in cover. The units that get a 5++ save can do so in any other League provided you park a Kahl next to them with a Rampart Crest, making this benefit really only about flexibility and decentralization rather than a unique defensive benefit only they can do. The best part of Ymyr is the range boost, and the best part about the defensive buff is that it gives you some modicum of freedom to make other choices, both when list building and during a match.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 14:53:41


Post by: Rihgu


Karol wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.


What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?


That just like DE were supposed to be balanced by ad mecha and orks, although not the way the players of armies different then those three, the LoV are going to be balanced the same way by upcoming books or maybe they will be balanced by core rules changes, the way 2.0 marines were, in the next edition.


Basically, this. That the Votann Judgement stuff may not be nerfed because their intent is to be the Paper to Transhuman/Tyranids/similar effects' Rock.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 16:13:40


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


Re: rock paper sissors, a rock paper scissor approach could work fine if every faction had rock, paper, and scissor options. If the factions are either a rock, a paper, or a scissor, then there will almost certainly be issues


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I was thinking about the land fortress more he other day. The question I have is what do the brackets look like and does votann have anything like the guard relentless strat that could boost it back up to top bracket? I know there's the whole using the one model to repair it thing, but I'm wondering, outside of that, how much is it going to take to reduce the effectiveness of the land fortress? Being a mech guard player, I'm painfully familiar with the effects of bracketed vehicles (especially since my typical opponent loves mortal wounds heh)


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 16:30:45


Post by: Vilgeir


It brackets at the same rate as other T8, 16W, 2+ save vehicles and they do have a Stratagem that allows it to behave as if it's on its top bracket. It's used in the command phase and lasts until the next command phase.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 16:43:31


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Bosskelot wrote:
The mangarail isn't even the worst thing about it.

Ymyr Conglomerate with maximum Beam weapons will just be dumping like 10-12 MW's onto targets on top of their normal damage.


A 2000pt Thousand Sons army dumps 2-3x that number of MWs in the psychic phase, before you account for shooting.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 16:55:25


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


 Vilgeir wrote:
It brackets at the same rate as other T8, 16W, 2+ save vehicles and they do have a Stratagem that allows it to behave as if it's on its top bracket. It's used in the command phase and lasts until the next command phase.


I was afraid you might say that heh


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 16:59:53


Post by: Amishprn86


artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Its not "that good" (as in over bearing early game to be nerfed), Ive played a few games with them. One game for example was against BT (2 dreads, big tank with 6 meltas and 3 las cannon, 20 crusades, incursors, 2 named HQs, some VGVs and BGVs, and 2 Eliminators for holding back fields). It was 50/50 T1, T2, and even T3, it wasn't till end of T3 that he felt like he could not win, but the score was even at the end of T3, he just would not be able to get Grind and would only be able to get up to 40 primary no maxing them. The end score if he would have kept playing would be close, 82(me) to 70(him).

LoV are a grind, they do have a lot of upfront damage and that is what people are focusing on, but what they are not looking at is there isnt a lot more to it on so few of units.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 17:31:15


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.


Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.


What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?


That just like DE were supposed to be balanced by ad mecha and orks, although not the way the players of armies different then those three, the LoV are going to be balanced the same way by upcoming books or maybe they will be balanced by core rules changes, the way 2.0 marines were, in the next edition.


I don't think you're making sense, Karol.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 19:08:21


Post by: Karol


It was exactly what the testers told us players. To not worry about DE, because Ad mecha are even better and will reign them in. If GW did stuff like that in the past why shouldn't they do the same in the future. The 2.0 marines when the books were coming out had rules, which GW knew will work different in the next , 9th ed and that their "OP" rules at the end of an edition are going to be normal for the next edition.

Considering the past, do people really think that GW with the next 2-3 books is deep in to thought, how to balance them for 9th ed? And if we went by what happens to reset end of an edition factions, LoV may end up like SoB. Hard nerfed in 10th by new edition rules, only to be brought back to playability by wave 2 of new models and a new codex dropping a year or so after the initial one.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 19:31:13


Post by: Amishprn86


Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players. To not worry about DE, because Ad mecha are even better and will reign them in. If GW did stuff like that in the past why shouldn't they do the same in the future. The 2.0 marines when the books were coming out had rules, which GW knew will work different in the next , 9th ed and that their "OP" rules at the end of an edition are going to be normal for the next edition.

Considering the past, do people really think that GW with the next 2-3 books is deep in to thought, how to balance them for 9th ed? And if we went by what happens to reset end of an edition factions, LoV may end up like SoB. Hard nerfed in 10th by new edition rules, only to be brought back to playability by wave 2 of new models and a new codex dropping a year or so after the initial one.


Um, no? We knew Admech was strong, and guess what? They tabled people T1 and T2 for a good 2 months, then they got nerfed. No one said Admech was going to help DE after the nerfs.

Also Im not saying Votann was made to counter other armies, i am saying they are literally countered by some armies bc of how they are just like Knights are as well. I dont believe this crap that GW makes armies to counter armies, I think they just want some cool good rules to sell models better and if they need to nerf then they will. Its not that complicated to want an army to do well with a new release, you dont need some conspiracy theory about counter XYZ.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 19:47:21


Post by: Bosskelot


 Vilgeir wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:

Even outside of the obvious overcosting it's yet another instance of subfaction rules really not being thought out well-enough and having such strong bonuses they warp everything in the codex around them. This has been a consistent issue ever since late 8th. Berzerks are absolutely undercosted at 22ppm already, but giving them a 5++ on top of that is just true insanity. But like I said, this is a consistent issue across multiple books; Bloody Rose has insane buffs for what is already a very CC focused faction so it just makes it the practical default choice while also leading to several units feeling insanely undercosted when taken as Bloody Rose; because they've been priced assuming some subfactionless baseline. The Marine books are all just huge messes because depending on supplement a somewhat innocuous unit could be getting an insane chapter tactic + an insane superdoctrine that just magnifies its power into the stratosphere. The 5 main Craftworlds all actually have really well thought-out subfaction rules, Biel-Tan and Ulthwe are obviously the best, but they aren't so powerfully warping to negatively effect the rest of the codex.... except that Hail of Doom custom exists which is such a gigantic power boost to what are already the only cost-efficient units in the codex that it is still the best choice and makes some of those units feel undercosted (even though outside of that custom trait they are not).


You seem to focus heavily on Ymyr here when talking about Beserks without considering how disgusting they'll be in Kronus, which all but makes them Bloody Rose Repentia. Repentia are great units, but they are made crazy powerful from Quick to Anger, Tear Them Down, Sacred Rites, and being able to fight on death all stacking together to give them some disgusting buffs - many of which are exactly the same things that make BR Repentia so damn oppressive. Kronus gives you all of that on more durable models that can get that 5++ just by being near a Kahl anyway.

I feel like Ymyr's army wide invuln benefit is a trap. The ones that get a 4++ save are the 2+ units with Void Armour, so your opponent has to put AP -4 into them for you to have even seen a benefit there, and that goes to AP -5 when the unit is in cover. The units that get a 5++ save can do so in any other League provided you park a Kahl next to them with a Rampart Crest, making this benefit really only about flexibility and decentralization rather than a unique defensive benefit only they can do. The best part of Ymyr is the range boost, and the best part about the defensive buff is that it gives you some modicum of freedom to make other choices, both when list building and during a match.


They go from getting a T-shirt save to a 5+ invun. That is an absolutely gigantic boost in survivability that completely changes how to look at the unit.

Kronus gives them buffs that makes them marginally better at what they're already good at. Them being S11 instead of S10 is meaningless and they do so much damage as-is the extra attack is literal overkill vs every conceivable target outside of CSM Terminator blocks.

Plus Ymyr kicks other units like the Land Fortress and the Iron Master into overdrive. Outside of Thurian League, Ymyr is unquestionably the best subfaction in the book and takes a bunch of already overpowered units and just makes them even better.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 19:50:06


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 21:17:05


Post by: Amishprn86


Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?


Literally no one lol.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 22:35:06


Post by: Rihgu


Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?




League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 23:37:25


Post by: Hecaton


 Rihgu wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?




Are Robbins and Brandt GW employees or out of house playtesters?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/10 23:40:34


Post by: Amishprn86


 Rihgu wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?




This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose" this is them saying lets see how the meta goes first. Which to be far was normally true especially when the army was still very new. Everyone said Custodes was bad and the meta would ruin them but look what happened they ended up being S tier until nerfs. So predicting the future meta isn't always correct. We are saying no one said GW does it on purpose for 1 army to be better than the other to counter each other in the meta. GW just saw a better book sell more models, so how do you sell an armies models when it has been bad for years and not sell? make it stronger than it should, nothing more to it.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 01:18:58


Post by: Rihgu


Hecaton wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?




Are Robbins and Brandt GW employees or out of house playtesters?


Robbins is an out of house playtester and Brandt is the global events coordinator for GW.

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose" this is them saying lets see how the meta goes first.

"rock in a scissors meta" seems like a pretty overt and direct reference to a game called Rock-Paper-Scissors, in which Rock beats Scissors, but Rock is in turn beaten by Paper. He is ALSO saying that we should see how the meta shakes out, which considering the context appears to be saying "once we have released more Paper, if Drukhari is still too good, we will adjust".


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 04:58:38


Post by: Vilgeir


 Bosskelot wrote:

They go from getting a T-shirt save to a 5+ invun. That is an absolutely gigantic boost in survivability that completely changes how to look at the unit


You misunderstand me, sorry for not being clearer. What I'm saying is that they do not need to be Ymyr to get the 5+ invulnerable save as any unit next to a Kahl will get the exact same buff. I didn't mean to imply that the 5++ wasn't useful, only that going Ymyr for the 5++ is not strictly necessary. You can still give them a 5++ as Kronus or GTL, for example.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Kronus gives them buffs that makes them marginally better at what they're already good at. Them being S11 instead of S10 is meaningless and they do so much damage as-is the extra attack is literal overkill vs every conceivable target outside of CSM Terminator blocks.


+1 Attack, +1 AP, AND +1 Strength, not to mention exploding sixes to hit. That's not marginally better, I'd argue. That's significantly better. An extra attack helps smooth out -1 to hit, for example.

Note just how much being able to swing back on death with +1 Attack and +1 AP make Repentia so dangerous. For Beserks, adding all those buffs on top will punish the hell out of anything that dares to charge them.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Plus Ymyr kicks other units like the Land Fortress and the Iron Master into overdrive. Outside of Thurian League, Ymyr is unquestionably the best subfaction in the book and takes a bunch of already overpowered units and just makes them even better.


Definitely with you there. I was only addressing just how the defensive buff from that custom reads as a trap considering all your infantry can get it easy enough already or would need to face insane AP values to get any benefit anyway.

I do think there's some possible play with Urani-Surtr depending on opponent as +1T is pretty decent for an army that disables wound rerolls, but it definitely isn't anywhere near the clear strength of Ymyr beam spam or GTL's ability to judge things.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 05:02:52


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?




This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 07:20:35


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 12:43:33


Post by: Karol


EviscerationPlague 806816 11430403 wrote:
What
How is that not the same


Specialy considering what happened when the armies that "delt with DE" got nerfed hard, we suddenly got DE exploded to 60%+ win rates again.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 13:12:47


Post by: Amishprn86


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.


Who? When?




This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same


There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
EviscerationPlague 806816 11430403 wrote:
What
How is that not the same


Specialy considering what happened when the armies that "delt with DE" got nerfed hard, we suddenly got DE exploded to 60%+ win rates again.


I am talking about the person that claimed GW makes a codex to counter another codex, I am saying they dont do that. Im not saying DE wasn't strong, I'm not saying it wasn't power creep, i am saying they didn't make DE to beat marines, and they then didn't make Admch to beat DE,a nd then Orks to beat Admech. Its GW they just want to sell models to there is a slight power creep in general.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 16:35:14


Post by: Hecaton


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.


A lot of times the people who come to the top of emergent social hierarchies aren't there for competence.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 16:41:34


Post by: kodos


Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 17:09:06


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Hecaton wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.


A lot of times the people who come to the top of emergent social hierarchies aren't there for competence.

Sometimes they're just hired for attitude!


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 17:14:07


Post by: Spoletta


 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 17:24:15


Post by: Rihgu


 Amishprn86 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same


There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.


Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 18:28:01


Post by: ccs


 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Last time I can recall was the new Soulblight tome for AoS.
It came out with some stuff in it that didn't really make much sense/apply for AoS 2e & GW said something vague about it being written to work with the next edition.
And shortly after that AoS 3e landed.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 18:35:43


Post by: Amishprn86


 Rihgu wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same


There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.


Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.


I think you missed my point, no where did he say DE was built to fight X army, or another army was built to fight DE, people in here were saying "GW makes armies as Rock, Paper, Scissor on purpose" there is no proof of that and I think its silly when really it easier to understand and see that they are just adding power creep to each book to sell models not some crazy weird practice to have balance to the game by having some armies purposefully strong against other certain armies. By the nature of same books they will just happen to be stronger against others anyways, Knights and Votann are 2 very good examples of this.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 18:47:37


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 18:49:43


Post by: Hecaton


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.


A lot of times the people who come to the top of emergent social hierarchies aren't there for competence.

Sometimes they're just hired for attitude!


To clarify, by "emergent" I don't meant that they were ever hired at all. Think about the people who run miniature gaming facebook groups.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 19:46:26


Post by: Blndmage


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL


Wasn't the whole Psychic Awakening series "written with 9th edition in mind"?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 19:52:13


Post by: Rihgu


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same


There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.


Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.


I think you missed my point, no where did he say DE was built to fight X army, or another army was built to fight DE,

Correct, and nobody was claiming that that was being said.

people in here were saying "GW makes armies as Rock, Paper, Scissor on purpose" there is no proof of that and I think its silly when really it easier to understand and see that they are just adding power creep to each book to sell models not some crazy weird practice to have balance to the game by having some armies purposefully strong against other certain armies. By the nature of same books they will just happen to be stronger against others anyways, Knights and Votann are 2 very good examples of this.


Did you look at the screencap that this entire conversation revolves around? The claim isn't that "Drukhari beat Space Marines, Admech beats Drukhari, Space Marines beat Admech".

It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.

"Drukhari are a rock on[sic] a scissors meta". "it shouldn't be surprising that an elite meta would be ill prepared for a strong new MSU force". "The forthcoming codexes all handle Drukhari well". "people have barely had a second to adjust to a very different list archetype".

In other words...
By the nature of same books they will just happen to be stronger against others anyways, Knights and Votann are 2 very good examples of this.

You yourself are making the same point being made by the people you are disagreeing with.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 20:04:18


Post by: kodos


 Blndmage wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL


Wasn't the whole Psychic Awakening series "written with 9th edition in mind"?
was there ever an official statement that it was written for 9th?
I can't really remember one


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Rihgu wrote:
It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.
which is bullshot game design in the first place
as it should not be 1 army being rock but every army has rock, paper scissor available and the build you chose would be 1, 2 or all 3 of them


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 20:42:27


Post by: Dudeface


 kodos wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.
which is bullshot game design in the first place
as it should not be 1 army being rock but every army has rock, paper scissor available and the build you chose would be 1, 2 or all 3 of them


So valid horde build knights/custodes and msu elite orks/guard yes? It's not possible for every archetype to exist in every book.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 20:57:07


Post by: Amishprn86


 Rihgu wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same


There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.


Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.


I think you missed my point, no where did he say DE was built to fight X army, or another army was built to fight DE,

Correct, and nobody was claiming that that was being said.


Yes people did

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players. To not worry about DE, because Ad mecha are even better and will reign them in.


I was talking about this type of mentality. They did NOT say Admech will reign them in, they said lets see how the meta goes first. I was making a correction bc no one of authority said Admech or any other army was made to beat another army.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 21:06:40


Post by: Karol


I was talking about this type of mentality. They did NOT say Admech will reign them in, they said lets see how the meta goes first. I was making a correction bc no one of authority said Admech or any other army was made to beat another army.


Because they did say it. The "wait till you see ad mecha" was a thing Reece said to a point that I who do not follow all podcasts he is on, knew he said that.

I am talking about the person that claimed GW makes a codex to counter another codex, I am saying they dont do that. Im not saying DE wasn't strong, I'm not saying it wasn't power creep, i am saying they didn't make DE to beat marines, and they then didn't make Admch to beat DE,a nd then Orks to beat Admech. Its GW they just want to sell models to there is a slight power creep in general.

GW never needed any special reasons to make eldar powerful. And then they made books coming after that a "balancing factor" to them being powerful. And the next books coming out, which also were reigning DE in, were Ad Mecha and Orks. And when those two books got nerfed, while DE recived changes to a build type their were no longer using we suddenly got a DE rise up 2.0. When Custodes came out the same playtesters said that people should wait for upcoming books to balance the meta, and when the meta is custodes, then the only coming balance can be the coming books which were tyranids and eldar. And they did "balance" custodes all right.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 21:41:07


Post by: Amishprn86


Karol wrote:
I was talking about this type of mentality. They did NOT say Admech will reign them in, they said lets see how the meta goes first. I was making a correction bc no one of authority said Admech or any other army was made to beat another army.


Because they did say it. The "wait till you see ad mecha" was a thing Reece said to a point that I who do not follow all podcasts he is on, knew he said that.

I am talking about the person that claimed GW makes a codex to counter another codex, I am saying they dont do that. Im not saying DE wasn't strong, I'm not saying it wasn't power creep, i am saying they didn't make DE to beat marines, and they then didn't make Admch to beat DE,a nd then Orks to beat Admech. Its GW they just want to sell models to there is a slight power creep in general.

GW never needed any special reasons to make eldar powerful. And then they made books coming after that a "balancing factor" to them being powerful. And the next books coming out, which also were reigning DE in, were Ad Mecha and Orks. And when those two books got nerfed, while DE recived changes to a build type their were no longer using we suddenly got a DE rise up 2.0. When Custodes came out the same playtesters said that people should wait for upcoming books to balance the meta, and when the meta is custodes, then the only coming balance can be the coming books which were tyranids and eldar. And they did "balance" custodes all right.


Show me where he said Admech will counter DE.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 21:55:37


Post by: kodos


Dudeface wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.
which is bullshot game design in the first place
as it should not be 1 army being rock but every army has rock, paper scissor available and the build you chose would be 1, 2 or all 3 of them

So valid horde build knights/custodes and msu elite orks/guard yes? It's not possible for every archetype to exist in every book.

Not like elite Ork/Guard existed from the beginning, but there is a different with 1 army being limited in building into 1 branch out of 3, or 1 army having no counter to a specific build

1 army not having all archetypes is one thing, 1 army not being able to fight all archetypes another, and if 1 Codex is written to be the counter to another Codex, those are missing both


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/11 23:17:03


Post by: alextroy


I think what is being missed here is that this Rock-Paper-Scissors thing is not a matter of codex design but of list design. Most codexes have optimal builds to deal with a certain types of list. You can build an anti-Knight or an Anti-Horde Space Marine list out of Codex Space Marines. The question is are either of those the best all around list you can build from Codex Space Marines?

At times, the most efficient list in a Codex is perfect for smashing a particular meta. However, that list will get smashed by a different meta. Remember how good some vehicle list were before Eradictors and other vehicle destroying units entered the game? Suddenly, vehicle list disappeared because the Rock to their Scissors appeared.

Drukhari list were perfect for destroying elite infantry list, which happened to be the meta. The meta was going to have to adjust to that fact. Some people with advanced knowledge of upcoming codexes also knew that some light infantry list were on the horizon. Drukhari would need to adjust to that as well.

Now this is no excuse for GW badly missing some balance points, but itself doesn't mean the game is badly designed or that some codexes were built to destroy others. The question is can a list be both good at doing its own thing while not being so deficient in other areas that is falls into lots of RPS scenarios?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 00:24:06


Post by: chaos0xomega


I dunno, I would have interpreted "wait til you see ad mech" as "if you think Deldar are busted, just wait until you see Ad Mech, they're even worse", not "Ad Mech will counter Deldar and balance them through meta rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock".


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 04:37:04


Post by: Spoletta


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL


Only the main dex.

For the chapters we are still using the 8th edition ones.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 08:47:06


Post by: Jidmah


Dudeface wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.
which is bullshot game design in the first place
as it should not be 1 army being rock but every army has rock, paper scissor available and the build you chose would be 1, 2 or all 3 of them


So valid horde build knights/custodes and msu elite orks/guard yes? It's not possible for every archetype to exist in every book.


MSU elite orks do exist though, that's what buggies are, and guard can be fairly elite as well when they focus on mechanised infantry or bulgryin/ogryns.

What doesn't work is increasing every codex to have as many options as the big ones like orks, eldar or guard do. Knight or Harlequins or TS will never be able to have more than one or two archetypes with a lot of overlap between them.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 09:14:19


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


Rock, paper, scissors wouldn't require them to have all the build archetypes, imho. It would just need to be able to deal with them by having load outs that are anti-hoard, anti-elite, and anti-tank. Critical for this to work is that they can't all be on the same unit (or at least not at the same time). That way you create situations where a unit might not be in the proper position when it's needed (or you may not have included it at all).


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 10:11:00


Post by: Tyel


"Custodes are not broken, they are a club in a meta full of seals."

Sorry but the idea DE countered the SM meta due to archetype design is incredibly dubious. They countered it (and everything else then in the game) because almost every unit was 10-20% too cheap. Which is why GW eventually ended up hiking most units in the codex (except wracks, for inexplicable reasons - and no, I don't think getting the money from the dozen competitive players who bought 150~ wracks counts as a logical reason.)

Which is basically the issue. 40k is very rarely sufficiently balanced for archetype versus archetype to be the thing. Its that faction X is playing a 2k game with 2400 points - with all the advantages that brings. Could be Harlequins, Daemons or Marines. Could be DE, Ad Mech, Buggy Spam. Could be Custodes, Tau, Harlequins, Tyranids. Some skewing can help here (like how everyone tried to take units to kill Voidweavers) - but at a certain point quantity has a quality all its own.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 13:02:31


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Drukhari being the rock to paper meta isnt a conspiracy.

They meant that the current meta was at the moment centered on killing elite infantry and bringing elite infantry. When drukhari came out, all the typical weapons that were in the meta became worse because of invuln and high mobility. And at the same time, dark lances just were the apex predators to elite stuff.

Their comment can be explained like this :

Imagine if the meta is only spamming lascannons
new codex comes out and it supports horde armies

now lascannons are bad against that codex but still good against the others, so people have to adjust and find a decent balance of lascannons and bolters in their lists.
Thats what they meant by "wait and see"


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 14:10:49


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Spoletta wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?


Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL


Only the main dex.

For the chapters we are still using the 8th edition ones.

Supplements don't count when the core of your rules is not there.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 15:39:42


Post by: Daedalus81


Numbers time.

Four Bolt Cannons - 2x S6 AP2 D2
Heavy Magna Rail - 1x S14 AP4 2D3+6
MATR AC - 6x S7 AP2 D2

The Scanner allows it to ignore light cover.

I would do this in Unit Crunch, but the spillover mechanic

Let's shoot some Scarabs:

BC - 8 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.74
HMR - 1 * .833 * .167 * 10 = 1.39
AC - 6 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.56

Scarabs with -1D might lose a model. That's in a scenario where the Rail rolls a 6 to wound to spill over. This is, of course, average numbers. In the situation where the MR actually rolls a 6 to wound you'd see 3 terminators off plus a negligible amount from the secondaries.

If it doesn't roll a 6 you would kill a single terminator. So that's it. Either it kills three at 14%, one at 56%, or zero at 30% of the time. Maybe you'll scratch a fourth with the other guns depending on the type of terminator you shoot.

Three over two turns will kill 8 to 10 terminators or 5 a turn. That's <= 200 points a turn killed by ~1000 ( if you brought Iron Masters for all 3, but no one will likely do this ).

Then there are the tokens gained by

- killing squats
- doing an action
- being on an objective -- this is ONE unit each turn
- being visible to a Kahl

Since hitting on a 4 means ( 3 tokens ) it counts as wounding on a 6 it could amp up the fortresses pretty fast. How does one deal with this?

Don't do actions with your terminators and don't use them to finish off units. Don't make them plainly visible to a Kahl ( one per detachment ) *in his command phase* who has a 5" move. In other words you can actively avoid being seen and the squats have no recourse to see you and put a token on.

Consider running 5 man terminators as that requires more tokens and they are less visible. Otherwise the primary method of token gain is probably going to be killing their units so plan on throw-away mop up units.

This is more a problem for big stuff that can't hide as they're going to get blasted.

I was able to simulate the real world effect of the tokens by putting a condition of the weapon dealing mortal wounds on 6s to wound to effect spill over.

I was able to model this in unit crunch against basic terminators with AoC ( only the Magna Rail ):

All graphs are % chance to kill that number of models.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 20:03:44


Post by: EightFoldPath


Is it safe to say you've at best skim read the codex?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/12 20:21:05


Post by: Amishprn86


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Numbers time.

Four Bolt Cannons - 2x S6 AP2 D2
Heavy Magna Rail - 1x S14 AP4 2D3+6
MATR AC - 6x S7 AP2 D2

The Scanner allows it to ignore light cover.

I would do this in Unit Crunch, but the spillover mechanic

Let's shoot some Scarabs:

BC - 8 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.74
HMR - 1 * .833 * .167 * 10 = 1.39
AC - 6 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.56

Scarabs with -1D might lose a model. That's in a scenario where the Rail rolls a 6 to wound to spill over. This is, of course, average numbers. In the situation where the MR actually rolls a 6 to wound you'd see 3 terminators off plus a negligible amount from the secondaries.

If it doesn't roll a 6 you would kill a single terminator. So that's it. Either it kills three at 14%, one at 56%, or zero at 30% of the time. Maybe you'll scratch a fourth with the other guns depending on the type of terminator you shoot.

Three over two turns will kill 8 to 10 terminators or 5 a turn. That's <= 200 points a turn killed by ~1000 ( if you brought Iron Masters for all 3, but no one will likely do this ).

Then there are the tokens gained by

- killing squats
- doing an action
- being on an objective -- this is ONE unit each turn
- being visible to a Kahl

Since hitting on a 4 means ( 3 tokens ) it counts as wounding on a 6 it could amp up the fortresses pretty fast. How does one deal with this?

Don't do actions with your terminators and don't use them to finish off units. Don't make them plainly visible to a Kahl ( one per detachment ) *in his command phase* who has a 5" move. In other words you can actively avoid being seen and the squats have no recourse to see you and put a token on.

Consider running 5 man terminators as that requires more tokens and they are less visible. Otherwise the primary method of token gain is probably going to be killing their units so plan on throw-away mop up units.

This is more a problem for big stuff that can't hide as they're going to get blasted.

I was able to simulate the real world effect of the tokens by putting a condition of the weapon dealing mortal wounds on 6s to wound to effect spill over.

I was able to model this in unit crunch against basic terminators with AoC ( only the Magna Rail ):

All graphs are % chance to kill that number of models.



Heck I played against BT the other night, so my ignore light cover didn't matter, and they all had a 5++ too, my 2 Hekatons did the least amount of damage out of all my units that I expected to deal serious damage (the others where Champ, Hearthguard and Beserks). The Hearthguard and Beserks won me the game, the Hekatons was better as a delivery system for them, I could have never shot my to Hekatons and the game would have been the same. They did how every pull an insane amount of fire power letting my Troops do what troops do and being able to get my HG/Serks into position without getting hurt. AoC on -2 and -3ap really made it feel week. Against CWE the Magna is only -ap, if you wanted to kill a Wave serpent, well they can Fate dice the save on a 6+.

I think they army is going to be good yes, but not OP like we have been seeing. I would put them above marines and below Nids, Quins, CWE, with the ability to hard counter Necrons, Knights, Custodes.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 08:02:06


Post by: Gadzilla666


Looking at the stats/rules on these LoV railguns, they just seem weird. They ignore invuls, so force fields, daemonic/Warp based powers, dodge/jink saves.....all of those it gets past. But with AP-4, in a game now filled with AoC 2+ armour, the armour has a chance to stop them? How does that make sense? I mean, a Leviathan's shields can't stop it, but it's armour can? Do the rules writers even know what the purpose of having an invulnerable save to back up your armour save is?

I really can't wait for the "fluff" explanation for how these things work. Assuming that they're even trying to come up with and stick to fluff for any game mechanics anymore.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 10:33:40


Post by: Not Online!!!


The consequence of not differentiating armor from armored targets, and excessive stats creep for a mechanic which is and would be better , but only if the designers use moderation.
Add to that lackluster wounding mechanics and overcompensation through invuls which leads to overcompensation again, etc etc et all, and we are back on square one with the suspension of disbelieve severly damaged.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 12:48:03


Post by: Dudeface


This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book seems a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 16:04:56


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.


LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 16:27:50


Post by: Dudeface


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.


LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.


Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 16:48:29


Post by: oni


Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 17:23:11


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Noooooo GW changed! They have social media now!


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 18:44:15


Post by: a_typical_hero


 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 19:37:10


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.


LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.


Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Your argument boils down to "they had a more broken unit so other broken unit didn't get used until other broken unit was reigned in, checkmate!


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 19:56:03


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.


LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.


Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Your argument boils down to "they had a more broken unit so other broken unit didn't get used until other broken unit was reigned in, checkmate!


If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1. The point is the hammerhead wasn't and to my knowledge hasn't really been touched with a direct nerf or even a points change? So should still be broken OP and reigning hell on people. Except it isn't.

If the Land Fortress isn't the best unit out the gates, if it isn't appearing with large frequency until other units get shuffled, then it's clearly not as bad as people are making out to be one way or the other.

Your argument here is "ner ner it placed in a tiny number of tournaments 6 months later, after the good stuff got nerfed" which doesn't really make the hammerhead sound like the top of the pile alpha threat it was made out to be.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 20:43:54


Post by: Hecaton


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I really can't wait for the "fluff" explanation for how these things work. Assuming that they're even trying to come up with and stick to fluff for any game mechanics anymore.


Bold of you to assume that the people writing these rules give a gak about the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.


Or when QA suggests changes, Cruddace rages out that someone has the temerity to challenge his perfect designs.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 20:47:18


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Hecaton wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I really can't wait for the "fluff" explanation for how these things work. Assuming that they're even trying to come up with and stick to fluff for any game mechanics anymore.


Bold of you to assume that the people writing these rules give a gak about the fluff.
I understand that some abstraction is required for a functional game but yeah, 40k as been jarringly out of line with its own fluff of late This is the worst its been in my memory.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 20:56:25


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.


LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.


Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Your argument boils down to "they had a more broken unit so other broken unit didn't get used until other broken unit was reigned in, checkmate!


If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 21:05:57


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.


The point I'm making (or trying to) is that there's a semi-regular knee jerk "most broken unit ever" thread that appears before we know all the information, or before it's hit the table at the least. The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/13 21:07:53


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.


The point I'm making (or trying to) is that there's a semi-regular knee jerk "most broken unit ever" thread that appears before we know all the information, or before it's hit the table at the least. The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.

Problem units are problem units, regardless if there's even MORE problem units, yes or no?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 01:15:57


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Who said it was the most broken unit?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 03:42:23


Post by: Amishprn86


a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.


Or they dont listen to them.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 05:24:49


Post by: Dudeface


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who said it was the most broken unit?


It's literally the premise of the entire thread:

Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 06:35:06


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Amishprn86 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.


Or they dont listen to them.

Good QA would make sure they'd be listened to, so the comment about QA probably not even existing is correct.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 06:42:17


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.


Or they dont listen to them.

Good QA would make sure they'd be listened to, so the comment about QA probably not even existing is correct.


Working in/around that world it isn't always possible, I've attended meetings where QA have outright said "no don't release this, the risks are too high" only to be met with "no, we will, but we'll make it sound like it's at the customers own risk but they don't have a choice" type responses by the bean counting stakeholders. Inevitably you then get the ner ner told you so a few months later when it goes wrong, but money beats QA a lot of the time.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 10:55:39


Post by: Tyel


I don't want to be that guy, but if we are doing theoretical freakouts, are we soft-selling it because we are focusing on Terminators? AoC 2+ versus AP4 is still a 5+.

The issue I'd have thought is that there are various other things in the game that aren't running 2+ AOC style saves. And "oh look I roll a 4+, you take 8-12 AP-4 ignore invul wounds that spill over... oh that's [whatever elite unit] dead".

I guess you can say MSU all the way down, but it feels like you are fairly reliably going to pick up units costing 150~ points. Which would be solid at 230 points even if you didn't also have all the smaller arms, which seems likely to contribute something.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 12:34:32


Post by: EightFoldPath


Yes spot on, the master misinformator did cherry pick one of the best profiles to defend against the magna-rails and then of course designed a scenario where there were no judgement tokens to help his "analysis".

2~3 judgement tokens are fantastic into:
High toughness models (Knights, other vehicles, Greater Daemons, other monsters).
Models with transhuman.
Models with no wound re-rolls or -1 to wound.

The army also has access to a good amount of mortal wounds in the shooting phase (which is what you will want to use against 2+ AoC targets).

Votann do look like a repeat of release AdMech in that they are just too cheap and have too easy access to strats/buffs to take them over the top.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 12:44:50


Post by: Daedalus81


 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.



40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.

40K's biggest problem is the organized chaos of fixes needed to get them out of a terrible codex release system.

Making a balanced army in a huge and growing number of factions isn't simple. Necrons who have really good secondaries and mountains of buffs still do not dominate. GSC who got nothing still do well and temporarily broke 65% last weekend. And perhaps only due to the 2" charge rule, which was removed. The game is a sum of its parts - not just what kills stuff really well.

Votann is a terribly small book and suffers the same syndrome as Harlequins where you need to pack all the functions into few units. It's overtuned, but not to the degree of being busted, in my opinion. I'm more interested in the impact of the beam weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EightFoldPath wrote:
Yes spot on, the master misinformator did cherry pick one of the best profiles to defend against the magna-rails and then of course designed a scenario where there were no judgement tokens to help his "analysis".

2~3 judgement tokens are fantastic into:
High toughness models (Knights, other vehicles, Greater Daemons, other monsters).
Models with transhuman.
Models with no wound re-rolls or -1 to wound.

The army also has access to a good amount of mortal wounds in the shooting phase (which is what you will want to use against 2+ AoC targets).

Votann do look like a repeat of release AdMech in that they are just too cheap and have too easy access to strats/buffs to take them over the top.


And yet the data is there for tokens as well as discussion points around application of tokens. Also, the -1D is almost negligible to the total output and I gave straight terminator stats in the graphs from unit crunch.

The assertion of bias just tells me people continue to refuse to actually read and engage points.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 12:56:50


Post by: Tyel


GSC did get a 65% win rate, but that's off 7 players, one of which won that Australian tournament going 5-0. So feels kind of skewed. But clearly the potential is there, in a way it wasn't seemingly before. (Although there were a few players still putting in good runs.)

As people say, it may be that the Squats are kind of busted in terms of the maths - but if their scoring potential isn't great, they just aren't going to be pushing an early-2022 busted codex win%. I don't know what data to pull up to prove it, but I feel the secondary changes have made the factions a lot flatter.

(Not sure it means much, but I am also enjoying how Creations of Bile seems to be showing up as the go-to CSM faction, which was my pick of the book, while some of the more pro-scene was obsessing over BL & WB. Sadly expect there will be (and possibly should be) nerfs down the track.)

But much like Tau Railguns, just because the competitive tournament scene looks like one thing, doesn't mean something can't be very toxic in a more casual space.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 13:18:58


Post by: Daedalus81


I think the worst part about casual is the learning curve. To be good you have to learn so much and take on all these layers of rules. People who opt out have an easier time learning, but a potentially worse experience.

It's certainly a quagmire that will be up in the air with 10th.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 13:20:47


Post by: Amishprn86


Tyel wrote:
GSC did get a 65% win rate, but that's off 7 players, one of which won that Australian tournament going 5-0. So feels kind of skewed. But clearly the potential is there, in a way it wasn't seemingly before. (Although there were a few players still putting in good runs.)

As people say, it may be that the Squats are kind of busted in terms of the maths - but if their scoring potential isn't great, they just aren't going to be pushing an early-2022 busted codex win%. I don't know what data to pull up to prove it, but I feel the secondary changes have made the factions a lot flatter.

(Not sure it means much, but I am also enjoying how Creations of Bile seems to be showing up as the go-to CSM faction, which was my pick of the book, while some of the more pro-scene was obsessing over BL & WB. Sadly expect there will be (and possibly should be) nerfs down the track.)

But much like Tau Railguns, just because the competitive tournament scene looks like one thing, doesn't mean something can't be very toxic in a more casual space.


LoV are terrible at most secondaries, they do have a strong going for Grind.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 13:52:33


Post by: Tyel


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the worst part about casual is the learning curve. To be good you have to learn so much and take on all these layers of rules. People who opt out have an easier time learning, but a potentially worse experience.

It's certainly a quagmire that will be up in the air with 10th.


I guess it depends what aspect of casual you are looking at.
I.E. I know we've had people on the forums who just don't play with chapter tactics, super doctrines and stratagems etc.
Which feels... really weird to me - but sure. I guess it reduces the mental load of remembering all these things.

But I know plenty of people who play "casual 40k" to be more like "old school 40k". I.E. don't care about secondaries. Or sometimes even really primaries. Just push models aggressively across the table, roll some dice, the player with the most left after 5 turns "wins" - but no one really cares about "winning the game", its just about being entertained for a few hours. Which I think is where power imbalances can show up and why lethality was (kinda still is) such an issue. Because the damage outcome of a game where both sides run at each other is very different to one where you try to keep everything behind L-shaped ruins when its not serving an objective purpose.

So in the case of here, someone showing up with 3 Hekatons, rolling a 4, 5 and 5, and going "yeah, sorry, that's a quarter of your army dead", doesn't "feel" good. And equally doesn't feel so unlikely, that you will see it on tables all over the world. Which is basically how it felt (and still feels tbh) with Tau Railguns. The fact that loads of armies can pull off this sort of lethality make mean its balanced - but not fun.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 17:11:29


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


 Daedalus81 wrote:


40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.

40K's biggest problem is the organized chaos of fixes needed to get them out of a terrible codex release system.

Making a balanced army in a huge and growing number of factions isn't simple. Necrons who have really good secondaries and mountains of buffs still do not dominate. GSC who got nothing still do well and temporarily broke 65% last weekend. And perhaps only due to the 2" charge rule, which was removed. The game is a sum of its parts - not just what kills stuff really well.

Votann is a terribly small book and suffers the same syndrome as Harlequins where you need to pack all the functions into few units. It's overtuned, but not to the degree of being busted, in my opinion. I'm more interested in the impact of the beam weapons.


Claiming now is the most balanced 40k has ever been feels...off...(I won't go so far as to claim it's factually incorrect, because I don't know for sure)...among my personal gaming group back in the day, 40k felt pretty good balance-wise back in 2009ish 5th edition (we had a couple of Tau armies, an eldar army, an imperial guard army, a space marine army, a necron army, and an ork army floating around among the five of us...so maybe we got lucky). Maybe (probably) it's just because I only play Imperial Guard these days that things feel horribly out of balance still.

I'd agree with this being the most balanced it's been in the past year or two (which I think is probably what you were going for), although I'd also have to slap a mighty big asterisk on that. This assumes you're playing Nephilim mission packs. If you're playing Tempest, then suddenly having easy secondaries aren't able to drag the win rate up. There's also, of course, the issue of internal balance, which is something tourney win rates can't really reflect, but that's nothing new and not really the point I'm trying to address.

I guess what I'm getting at is, for a codex to be fully balanced (externally at least) it needs to be balanced in multiple formats and across multiple battle sizes (I have suspicions that Imperial Guard do particularly poorly at the 1250pts my group currently prefers). Squats being good or bad at objective play and making up for it in shooting or defense is all well and good. The squats having bad faction objectives and making up for it in shooting or defense is problematic as there are formats where you don't use the faction objectives. I haven't taken a close look at the leaked codex, so I'm not sure which version of bad objective play it is.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 17:15:04


Post by: Daedalus81


I certainly can't argue with that.

As much as I like the faction specific secondaries they alone are quite a mental load.

If GW could make terrain a little easier to "get right" without everything being ruins and scoring more accessible to casual games it would likely improve the experience for most people.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 18:45:57


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who said it was the most broken unit?


It's literally the premise of the entire thread:

Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 19:14:00


Post by: Dudeface


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who said it was the most broken unit?


It's literally the premise of the entire thread:

Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?


Nobody ever said most broken unit ever beyond in hyperbolic satire, just that it's the most broken unit in the book. There's a few comments on how it's too good that don't draw direct comparison to the rest of the game however so not impossible some feel it is.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 19:15:01


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 19:32:19


Post by: artific3r


Dudeface wrote:
The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.


Hey man, reasonable takes are not allowed here. You're supposed to screech about your faction being bad, or someone else's faction being broken.

Better yet, screech about an unreleased faction being broken. That way no one can prove you wrong.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/14 23:26:56


Post by: Hecaton


Tyel wrote:
I don't want to be that guy, but if we are doing theoretical freakouts, are we soft-selling it because we are focusing on Terminators? AoC 2+ versus AP4 is still a 5+.

The issue I'd have thought is that there are various other things in the game that aren't running 2+ AOC style saves. And "oh look I roll a 4+, you take 8-12 AP-4 ignore invul wounds that spill over... oh that's [whatever elite unit] dead".

I guess you can say MSU all the way down, but it feels like you are fairly reliably going to pick up units costing 150~ points. Which would be solid at 230 points even if you didn't also have all the smaller arms, which seems likely to contribute something.


Yup. They really need to give Meganobz a 5+ FnP for their medical squig .


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 08:29:57


Post by: Tyel


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


What other metric would you use?

The problem with balance is that its always to some extent in the eye of the beholder. 40k was the most balanced "for me" in early 3rd edition, when I was about 12-14, playing mostly with a bunch of other 12-14 year olds, who had, as a consequence, extremely casual/highlander/white dwarfesque armies, and little scope to do much about it. I suspect most editions would have felt fairly balanced in such a meta where most armies contained a good number of their "bad" units, and most players were probably quite poor.

When 5th rolled out I was in my early 20s, playing with people in their early 20s. Most of us have jobs (not necesarilly good ones, but jobs all the same) and if we want to splash the cash, we can - and some did so. The meta unsurprisingly becomes far sharper. If you are playing a "weak book" - and worse still, have a "weak list" from said book, the game moves to be borderline unplayable. Or I guess like playing Guard for most of the last few years.

Throughout most of 40k history, the competitive scene has tended to be dominated by a handful of factions - that are just mathematically better than the rest. Any period where this doesn't seem the case - since you've got lots of different factions placing - would seem well balanced by comparison.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 08:55:30


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


What other metric would you use?

The problem with balance is that its always to some extent in the eye of the beholder. 40k was the most balanced "for me" in early 3rd edition, when I was about 12-14, playing mostly with a bunch of other 12-14 year olds, who had, as a consequence, extremely casual/highlander/white dwarfesque armies, and little scope to do much about it. I suspect most editions would have felt fairly balanced in such a meta where most armies contained a good number of their "bad" units, and most players were probably quite poor.

When 5th rolled out I was in my early 20s, playing with people in their early 20s. Most of us have jobs (not necesarilly good ones, but jobs all the same) and if we want to splash the cash, we can - and some did so. The meta unsurprisingly becomes far sharper. If you are playing a "weak book" - and worse still, have a "weak list" from said book, the game moves to be borderline unplayable. Or I guess like playing Guard for most of the last few years.

Throughout most of 40k history, the competitive scene has tended to be dominated by a handful of factions - that are just mathematically better than the rest. Any period where this doesn't seem the case - since you've got lots of different factions placing - would seem well balanced by comparison.


As a semi-tangent, this is actually an interesting line of thought.

A fair few Dakkanauts will have grown up with 40K. Not necessarily “There From Day One”, but certainly 2nd/3rd onward. And like yourself, when we started out we were typically playing against peers of similarly restricted income. And so armies would’ve tended to be What We’ve Got, over What We Wanted.

But as we grew up, jobs brought salaries, salaries bought toys. Suddenly that squad we’d need to have foregone sweets for a few weeks to buy was completely affordable. And we could add to armies, or start entirely new armies more or less on a whim.

This is a thread unto itself I think. I’ll gather my thoughts and get it started.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 11:15:55


Post by: Amishprn86


Its also army dependent, each edition had armies way out of balance and if you didn't play one of those or anyone in your local that did you might never have seen the problem bc the internet didn't talk about it much back then.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 14:29:54


Post by: ccs


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its also army dependent, each edition had armies way out of balance and if you didn't play one of those or anyone in your local that did you might never have seen the problem bc the internet didn't talk about it much back then.


The internet of the time talked about it plenty.
You evidently weren't where most of the discussions were being had.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 19:32:39


Post by: Amishprn86


ccs wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its also army dependent, each edition had armies way out of balance and if you didn't play one of those or anyone in your local that did you might never have seen the problem bc the internet didn't talk about it much back then.


The internet of the time talked about it plenty.
You evidently weren't where most of the discussions were being had.


There is a HUGE difference in "talking" and have the events listed with 1000's of games as data. Almost no one listed many of the events lists before 7th, 6th started it and only a few of the top events and only 2-3 of the top lists. The top list from 3rd through 5th was mostly copy and past hearsay unless you were lucky to have 3++, or a niche faction server post it. Yes people talked, yes people said GKs were broken in 5th, CSM in 3rd, or Nids in 4th, but we had no idea how bad it was (if it even was that bad or just bullied the average player), or any proof other than antidotal.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 20:48:46


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


What other metric would you use?

I use Sub Faction and unit appearance.

Tyranids used to get tops with their absolutely horrendous 6th edition codex due to Flyrant power, but I don't think most people would say that codex was the pinnacle of smart codex writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though Sub Faction matters less thanks to GW doing the smart thing and piling Special Snowflake Marine chapters into the main codex, but it's important to look at regardless if you use Your Dudes (TM) or not.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 21:07:00


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


Also a fair statement. For me it's the ability for people to bring an army of their choosing and have a good chance at success given similar skill. Obviously there's tons of complicating factors and rabbit holes to go down that makes such statements not so simple.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 21:25:39


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who said it was the most broken unit?


It's literally the premise of the entire thread:

Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?


Nobody ever said most broken unit ever beyond in hyperbolic satire, just that it's the most broken unit in the book. There's a few comments on how it's too good that don't draw direct comparison to the rest of the game however so not impossible some feel it is.
I feel like there is a disconnect between this and what you posted earlier:

Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.


The point I'm making (or trying to) is that there's a semi-regular knee jerk "most broken unit ever" thread that appears before we know all the information, or before it's hit the table at the least. The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.


If hyperbole is bad, why use it yourself? If it isn't, why fault others for using it?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 21:48:16


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


Also a fair statement. For me it's the ability for people to bring an army of their choosing and have a good chance at success given similar skill. Obviously there's tons of complicating factors and rabbit holes to go down that makes such statements not so simple.

I don't disagree, but with tournament data the problem is that the stuff which is bad just doesn't get played. The good stuff is easy to judge, because it pops up all the time, and it beats other stuff which is also good. It is , aside for a simple they are bad, hard to judge something like Crimson Fists, when there is little to no data on them. Not that little data can't say something about a list. Ad mecha are like that. An army which was popular and played a lot. Got "balanced" by GW, and now only a small group of people know how to play and win with them, while everyone else loses while playing the army.

It is telling though that in Nachtmund the balance state was achived by pairing the top over the top and under costed armies with armies that play soliter and require minimal interaction with the opposing army to win. And it is telling when armies like eldar are being called worse by top players, only because unlike necron, they do not have free secondaries anymore.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/15 23:09:00


Post by: Asmodios


 Amishprn86 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.


Or they dont listen to them.

Actually according to insiders this codex never went to play testers because they didn't want it leaked (fair enough because everything would have leaked months early). But considering most codexes that have come out recently have been relatively balanced im prone to believe that this wont be well balanced because it didn't go through the testing that established codexes do


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 02:27:51


Post by: Hecaton


Asmodios wrote:

Actually according to insiders this codex never went to play testers because they didn't want it leaked (fair enough because everything would have leaked months early). But considering most codexes that have come out recently have been relatively balanced im prone to believe that this wont be well balanced because it didn't go through the testing that established codexes do


Tyranids and Eldar *cough*


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 06:26:47


Post by: Dudeface


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Who said it was the most broken unit?


It's literally the premise of the entire thread:

Cj4594 wrote:
My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?


Nobody ever said most broken unit ever beyond in hyperbolic satire, just that it's the most broken unit in the book. There's a few comments on how it's too good that don't draw direct comparison to the rest of the game however so not impossible some feel it is.
I feel like there is a disconnect between this and what you posted earlier:

Spoiler:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.


The point I'm making (or trying to) is that there's a semi-regular knee jerk "most broken unit ever" thread that appears before we know all the information, or before it's hit the table at the least. The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.


If hyperbole is bad, why use it yourself? If it isn't, why fault others for using it?


I didn't? I'm really not sure where you're going with this, my point was there's fairly often a thread about a unit/weapon/strat/faction is way too OP and inevitably draws attention stating that the game isn't playable, or is too unhealthy, other people can't compete etc.

That's literally what this thread is founded on, that there is one unit that's so far removed from balanced it becomes an obstacle to the game. You can dress up or down that statement with as much or little hyperbolic garnish as you see fit.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 06:37:24


Post by: tneva82


Hecaton wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

Actually according to insiders this codex never went to play testers because they didn't want it leaked (fair enough because everything would have leaked months early). But considering most codexes that have come out recently have been relatively balanced im prone to believe that this wont be well balanced because it didn't go through the testing that established codexes do


Tyranids and Eldar *cough*


When playtesters don't get full rules like d3+3 dark lances nor are asked about point costs value testers have is dubious. Without full rules nor point costs even best playtesters can't give anything of value even if GW were inclined to listen.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 08:36:03


Post by: Karol


The interesting thing is, that the playtesters said that durning their test runs with the non updated weapons, aka old liquifires, old dark lances etc they still found DE a very powerful army. I think that this a degree shows how GW can over and undershot an armies rules.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 11:38:23


Post by: Amishprn86


Karol wrote:
The interesting thing is, that the playtesters said that durning their test runs with the non updated weapons, aka old liquifires, old dark lances etc they still found DE a very powerful army. I think that this a degree shows how GW can over and undershot an armies rules.


TBH you had people like me taking 8-10 raiders all of late 8th and early 9th which mix results. It wasn;t the raider and new Dark lance that was really the issue even though goon thought so, it was the under costed Incubi, characters, and DT Liqs. After those changed yes DE was still doing great but Raiders went up at that point too and players went 100% coven, bc GW for some reason has been pushing coven hard since 7th. Also my 10 DT DC Raiders list in 8th/early 9th was never meet with hostility at all, 30 Shots with +1w -3ap, and 3D, then 13 Hexrifles at 2D, and that was only 1500pts, I still had 3 Ravagers lol. If i did this now it would actually be WORST, even with lances. With D6's being trash (D3+3 is a lot but it should be and Lacannons needs this treatment too), I can see why GW was on the side of DE for the Lance/raider thing, and I am too.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 12:24:36


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Dudeface wrote:
my point was there's fairly often a thread about a unit/weapon/strat/faction is way too OP and inevitably draws attention stating that the game isn't playable, or is too unhealthy, other people can't compete etc.
My point is people are not saying those things. They are expressing positions with less hyperbole and more nuance, that are then being unfairly characterized as more extreme.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 12:48:36


Post by: Karol


Which mean it comes down to language interpretation. Being not okey with w40k rules is being equaled to wanting the GW DT team to die, or at least watch their families die. While saying one has fun in 9th, is more or less the same as saying I own GW stocks pay more money for books, models etc pay pigs.

From my expiriance that is how all arguments look like nowadays, not just in w40k. And God help those that try to be in the middle, because as the proverb says "the one who sits on the fance gets his ass .... by both sides".


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 12:52:04


Post by: Slipspace


Karol wrote:
Which mean it comes down to language interpretation.

So just like the vast majority of human interactions then. If you're not willing or able to understand nuance and shades of grey in a discussion it may not be the discussion for you.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 14:20:29


Post by: Karol


In the end it boils down to people wanting the factions they play to be fun, maybe they care for stuff their friends or family play, and that is it. Took me an entire edition to understand that, because before that I thought that people were okey with stuff being on a rotation.

That is why, well plus because of me being me, I like interactions to be structured, limited in vogueness, with a limitation on outside interactions to maximum. Main reason why I love sports so much. The rules themselfs say that you can't talk to the opponent durning match, and they limit what you can say or do before and after it. If GW was like professional wrestling it would be perfect game for me.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 14:41:22


Post by: Tyel


 Amishprn86 wrote:
TBH you had people like me taking 8-10 raiders all of late 8th and early 9th which mix results. It wasn;t the raider and new Dark lance that was really the issue even though goon thought so, it was the under costed Incubi, characters, and DT Liqs. After those changed yes DE was still doing great but Raiders went up at that point too and players went 100% coven, bc GW for some reason has been pushing coven hard since 7th. Also my 10 DT DC Raiders list in 8th/early 9th was never meet with hostility at all, 30 Shots with +1w -3ap, and 3D, then 13 Hexrifles at 2D, and that was only 1500pts, I still had 3 Ravagers lol. If i did this now it would actually be WORST, even with lances. With D6's being trash (D3+3 is a lot but it should be and Lacannons needs this treatment too), I can see why GW was on the side of DE for the Lance/raider thing, and I am too.


The Lance thing is just going to go down in history because TTT said "we didn't playtest it that way".

I think it contributed a little - but the general undercostedness of Incubi, Wyches, kitted out characters etc was more considerable in those early days.
DT liquifiers was clearly just a mistake of compounding buff on buff that isn't perhaps obvious if you are still mentally in the old system. Hence why we had lots of DE playing dakkanauts in those first couple of weeks claiming "this shouldn't work, because you can do the same in 8th and no one does." Buff the strength, buff the range, switch the mortal wounds to be on hit rather than wounding, and oh look, a monster that on average gets you a 100% points return into intercessors.

And then GW decided to nerf this, but weirdly reduced the cost of Talos (which were already becoming meta, I think due to Ad Mech), Grots & Haemi, so Covens became the thing to run. (5 point increase to Cronos didn't really bother, since with DT they were still bonkers.)


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 15:06:31


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
I don't disagree, but with tournament data the problem is that the stuff which is bad just doesn't get played. The good stuff is easy to judge, because it pops up all the time, and it beats other stuff which is also good. It is , aside for a simple they are bad, hard to judge something like Crimson Fists, when there is little to no data on them. Not that little data can't say something about a list. Ad mecha are like that. An army which was popular and played a lot. Got "balanced" by GW, and now only a small group of people know how to play and win with them, while everyone else loses while playing the army.

It is telling though that in Nachtmund the balance state was achived by pairing the top over the top and under costed armies with armies that play soliter and require minimal interaction with the opposing army to win. And it is telling when armies like eldar are being called worse by top players, only because unlike necron, they do not have free secondaries anymore.


There's a gradient there. The vast majority of "bad" units are not so sub-optimal to their counterparts like they were in the past.

Something that's 10% worse than the best can be overcome by smart play and sometimes a little luck. It's only when you attend a 5+ round tournament and hit one of the regular top players that it could become an issue.

It gets exacerbated if you lean into it too hard. Taking one Qlas predator? Probably won't affect most games. Taking three? You'll notice unless the dice and targets favor you.

Overall the state of the game is a chaotic mash that kind of works. It's going to take a lot of slight and careful adjustments to address the myriad of other things hidden under the surface. That is if 10th doesn't put everything into a tail spin.





League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/16 19:22:37


Post by: Karol


That is only if the opponent takes a same win rate army. If you take a non optimal list vs a better army, or worse better army and a optimised build, you never win. It is just not possible, and the game often turn in to. move here move there, your army can't mathematicly do enough dmg to my army for me to max out secondaries turn 2-3 etc. If a necron or sob player sits in front of a marine player the game is done on the level of seson rules, before even a single dice is rolled.

In mirrors or when bad people with bad armies play against each other, it maybe less a thing. Or at least it would have been, if GW didn't intreduced hard counters and skews to the game. And the worse the army and player, the bigger impact it has. A best in the world player, can take a less optimal army, ad mecha are a good example of that, and beat stuff like tyranids or eldar etc. A regular bloke that takes ad mecha vs a tyranid army will just get destroyed, unless the tyranid makes his list bad on purpose and plays bad on purpose too.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/17 08:36:11


Post by: Jidmah


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't disagree, but with tournament data the problem is that the stuff which is bad just doesn't get played. The good stuff is easy to judge, because it pops up all the time, and it beats other stuff which is also good. It is , aside for a simple they are bad, hard to judge something like Crimson Fists, when there is little to no data on them. Not that little data can't say something about a list. Ad mecha are like that. An army which was popular and played a lot. Got "balanced" by GW, and now only a small group of people know how to play and win with them, while everyone else loses while playing the army.

It is telling though that in Nachtmund the balance state was achived by pairing the top over the top and under costed armies with armies that play soliter and require minimal interaction with the opposing army to win. And it is telling when armies like eldar are being called worse by top players, only because unlike necron, they do not have free secondaries anymore.


There's a gradient there. The vast majority of "bad" units are not so sub-optimal to their counterparts like they were in the past.

Something that's 10% worse than the best can be overcome by smart play and sometimes a little luck. It's only when you attend a 5+ round tournament and hit one of the regular top players that it could become an issue.

It gets exacerbated if you lean into it too hard. Taking one Qlas predator? Probably won't affect most games. Taking three? You'll notice unless the dice and targets favor you.

Overall the state of the game is a chaotic mash that kind of works. It's going to take a lot of slight and careful adjustments to address the myriad of other things hidden under the surface. That is if 10th doesn't put everything into a tail spin.


It's also worth noticing that the nephilim secondaries play a big role in why tournament play is fairly balanced right. For crusade, BRB matched play and tempest of war these have no effect and least here on dakka these game modes are just as popular as nephilim.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 01:16:40


Post by: ZergSmasher


This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 02:16:06


Post by: Amishprn86


 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


They are extremely strong yes, the more I am playing and learning about them the more it sucks more a lot of armies. I played into a couple armies that did well into them, but then into Marines, Quins, and a couple others its was a nightmare for the other player. LoV is going to poo on like 80% of the armies.

Nerfs I want to see after some games with them

Judgement: Instead of auto 6's to wound, make it "Count as the hit roll dice" aka a 4 to hit is a 4 to wound.
Iron Master: block needs to be once a game not turn. That fact it is once a turn is pretty insane to me.
Beam: Should not auto hit each unit after the first, should still need to roll to hit and to wound.

These 3 changes will put them in a much better balance spot, after that see what units are a problem and then adjust points, but IMO the rules needs to change first no matter what.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 06:36:45


Post by: Dudeface


ZergSmasher wrote:This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


Careful now, I've been informed people don't say these things and instead present nuanced arguments about specific items of debate.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 09:41:20


Post by: EightFoldPath


I've always assumed these kinds of thread are a general catch all "this faction is broken on release" thread, while also pointing out one thing massively egregious within the faction.

Like the Tau Hammerhead one. I thought it was to both point out the Railgun was stupid and also generally complain about release Tau.

Obviously anyone planning to come in and do some bad faith arguing would interpret the thread to what benefits them most.

I've just realised today the LoV bikers are the same points cost as CSM bikers.

3 CSM get 14 S4 AP0 D1 shots. Melee is 13 S4 AP1 D1.

3 LoV get 9 S7 AP1 D2 shots per bike, plus 6 S5 AP1 D1 when in close. Melee is 9 S4 AP0 D1.

Similarish (but I'd prefer the LoV statline in CSM), then the LoV bikes get a pre game move, obsec, better upgrades (why don't CSM bikers with a Plasma Gun get +1W/A).

Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 10:52:13


Post by: Nevelon


 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


Tau give up the psychic and combat phases to be good at shooting.
LoV are a bit slower? But it’s not like they gave up the whole movement phase, they still have those bikes and transports.

They do seem to be a more elite army, so you have more power concentrated into fewer models. So the numbers should look a bit scary.

My knee jerk is that they do seem a bit more powerful then other options. Everything that they have is a little better than everyone else. In a galaxy populated by superlatives, This seems a bit much. But the codex creep train has no brakes, and looks like it’s in full force here.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 11:13:57


Post by: Valkyrie


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


They are extremely strong yes, the more I am playing and learning about them the more it sucks more a lot of armies. I played into a couple armies that did well into them, but then into Marines, Quins, and a couple others its was a nightmare for the other player. LoV is going to poo on like 80% of the armies.

Nerfs I want to see after some games with them

Judgement: Instead of auto 6's to wound, make it "Count as the hit roll dice" aka a 4 to hit is a 4 to wound.
Iron Master: block needs to be once a game not turn. That fact it is once a turn is pretty insane to me.
Beam: Should not auto hit each unit after the first, should still need to roll to hit and to wound.

These 3 changes will put them in a much better balance spot, after that see what units are a problem and then adjust points, but IMO the rules needs to change first no matter what.


Agree on the nerfs, although I would possibly nerf Judgement to "a unit can only gain one token per turn", avoids the easy enough combo of putting 3 tokens on one unit and deleting it with the Railcannon in turn 1. I would also remove the condition that units performing actions getting tokens automatically. For a Tau player, this is just hideous; the only way to get +1 to hit in my army makes it easier to delete? If my Stormsurge drops his anchors then that makes him easier to destroy. If I have the *audacity* to move my Tidewall then somehow that makes your guys more angry?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 13:30:42


Post by: The Black Adder


Valkyrie, I agree. It seems likely that there needs to be more of a limit to the judgement counters. Overall they seem like a bad idea in general though, because they punish the other player for playing the game.

From what I've seen it appears that refusing to play the objectives and actions to later turns and focusing on fighting will simply result in your army being wiped anyway.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 14:39:22


Post by: Asmodios


honestly i don't think they would be overly strong if they didn't get hammer of the emperor on steroids. I think there are work arounds for their incredible durability, they have a good balance of being slow/ needing to give up shooting to be fast, but auto wounding on 4s with how easy it is to apply judgment tokens is a bit much. give some other buff for grudge tokens but just scaling auto wounds screws over some armies like knights with zero remedies or ways to balance currently.

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 15:12:25


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Dudeface wrote:
ZergSmasher wrote:This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


Careful now, I've been informed people don't say these things and instead present nuanced arguments about specific items of debate.
Who said that? Seems like an equally unreasonable portrayal, just in the opposite direction.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 15:27:25


Post by: Karol


 Nevelon wrote:


Tau give up the psychic and combat phases to be good at shooting.
LoV are a bit slower? But it’s not like they gave up the whole movement phase, they still have those bikes and transports.

They do seem to be a more elite army, so you have more power concentrated into fewer models. So the numbers should look a bit scary.

My knee jerk is that they do seem a bit more powerful then other options. Everything that they have is a little better than everyone else. In a galaxy populated by superlatives, This seems a bit much. But the codex creep train has no brakes, and looks like it’s in full force here.


If they can't decide the game turn 1, with the speed and secondaries they have the LoV will struggle against armies with easy to do secondaries and same fire power and better speed. They will punish the hell out of armies like marines though. If someone plays bloody rose or Necron the LoV look weak.

the problem with core rule changes, judgment tokens, or pre emptive nerfs to core units can end up really bad for a faction which has fewer then 10 different unit types, and that is counting characters. Without hyper efficient tokens the LoV are just really slow tau, without their version of hyper landraider, they will struggle in to any good army. What is really worrying is that, a bit like GK, the army seems to be one of those where one would want to play at least 3 units of bikers, and potentialy more if it was possible.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 16:09:05


Post by: ccs


Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against


Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 16:27:52


Post by: Daedalus81


I wonder how many top players are commissioning an army and how long it will take for them to truly hit the scene. I think this is the first real ground up army in a while, right?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 16:38:41


Post by: Amishprn86


 Nevelon wrote:
 ZergSmasher wrote:
This thread is harping about the Hekaton Land Fortress, but actually the whole LoV book looks busted AF right now. Just insanely efficient and can actually outshoot Tau, the game's premier shooting army, while being amazing at melee as well with units like the Berserks. I guess we should all just hail our stubby little dwarf overlords. Or we should all yell and scream and say "Woe is me!" and talk about how we're all gonna quit playing 40k and all the other crazy crap I see on Dakka every time a new book comes out.

I wasn't kidding about the army looking broken strong, but with the regular balance updates they'll catch that nerf bat in due time.


Tau give up the psychic and combat phases to be good at shooting.
LoV are a bit slower? But it’s not like they gave up the whole movement phase, they still have those bikes and transports.

They do seem to be a more elite army, so you have more power concentrated into fewer models. So the numbers should look a bit scary.

My knee jerk is that they do seem a bit more powerful then other options. Everything that they have is a little better than everyone else. In a galaxy populated by superlatives, This seems a bit much. But the codex creep train has no brakes, and looks like it’s in full force here.


Yes they are slower, they do give up a lot actually, the issue is their damage is so good (the more I play the more I see this) that you giving up things doesn't matter.

1) Can't advance then shoot or charge
2) Can't advance past 8" on many units
3) Has limit number of units, actions takes away damage for sure
4) Limit units and numbers also means locking screens, compile with being slow (Warriors for example) they basically dont have screens after T1 other than the bikes
5) Limit MW defense
6) Bad secondaries, and honestly a couple are actually punishing to the LoV player
7) Slow means no counter moves, hard to get around terrain, etc... without Bikes and Vehicles

But then you look at their damage.... a HLF can kill UNITS by themselves. Test into Quins it killed 3 Skyweavers and a Starweaver, 2nd on killed 2 Skyweavers and a Voidweaver. Into BT 2 killed 16 Crusaders, 5 VGVs, and 6 other marines at random locations (all with 5+++), and this is without the supped up killing version.

Hearthguard doing 10-12 MWs and 18+ saves.
Warriors Ion 1 CP stratagem to deal 6 MWs and 7-8 2D wounds.
Champion (if even taking) literally able to erase characters without a wounds limit per turn/phase and whole units, and even more so in GTL with Uthar.
Beserks ignore counter offensive bc you dont care if they go 2nd
Auto hit/wound Magna a turn in GTL on a 6, on average 2.3 from 3 Fortresses, and even more if in Warriors, completely removing units, outside of GTL still able to get 2 most the time if spending CP.

It really starts to add up. My turns 2 has been Bikes shooting to add JT and soften up weak units, Ion warriors deals 6 MWs an an addition 6-7 saves, Hearthguard deals 10-12 MWs and an additional 20 saves, HLFs both shoot killing units or heavily hurting multiple, Charging with 5-10 Beserks mopping up units, Hearthguard also trying to charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wonder how many top players are commissioning an army and how long it will take for them to truly hit the scene. I think this is the first real ground up army in a while, right?


2/3 of the army wont be out till Nov, I am 100% guessing Warriors, a couple characters, and bikes will already be fully ready to go, but a list with just 18 Bikes, 3 characters, and Warriors isn't impressive, it wont be till mid November we will see the rest painted and on tables with limit results (number of games), it wont be till late Nov and Dec we really start to see the numbers get insane, January is going to be off the rails with them if no Dataslate.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 16:47:30


Post by: Kanluwen


Using harlequins as an example is a bit disingenuous.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 16:50:59


Post by: Amishprn86


 Kanluwen wrote:
Using harlequins as an example is a bit disingenuous.


"Using the S tier army is disingenuous" ... I also used Marines as an example, its what i have played again, sorry but I can only play against so many things in a short amount of time, and no it isn't bc they are one of the best armies right now. I would like to play into Daemons if I can, but I dont know anyone with them and my TTS times are limited.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 17:02:58


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I wonder how many top players are commissioning an army and how long it will take for them to truly hit the scene. I think this is the first real ground up army in a while, right?


Are we only talking people who are playtesters or know playtesters or generaly tournament players around the world. Because the first group can do it a lot sooner. The rest, assuming most books get leaked to the general public a month to a few weeks in advance probably do it after a weekend or week of heavy testing, if they already have parts of the army. And there is stuff which even to a noob is clearly mind blowing good, when an army is both powerful and undercosted. What I do know is that boxs were being cracked to paint stuff last week. Assuming stores closer to GW production line get stuff sooner and the people can know the store owners better. I would say that having a ready army to play a week to 10 day after release of a zero to new army is normal. Happened with SoB here.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 17:03:59


Post by: Asmodios


ccs wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against


Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .


I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 17:53:40


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Showing up and just not using core mechanics of the army defeats the point in multiple ways.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 18:02:35


Post by: ccs


Asmodios wrote:
ccs wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against


Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .


I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount


I didn't say anything about playing the rule(s) wrong. Or about making up house rules.

*Yes or No: Is placing a judgment token optional?
If yes, & you don't like judgment tokens, then simply don't place any. Your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is redeeming judgment tokens optional?
If yes, just don't redeem them. Again, your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is it mandatory that you take <whatever unit/big tank gun you don't like/is most OP/statisticaly best/will be least fun/etc>?
If it's not.... then make another choice. Pick something you do like, that will be fun.





League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 18:14:12


Post by: Asmodios


ccs wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
ccs wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against


Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .


I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount


I didn't say anything about playing the rule(s) wrong. Or about making up house rules.

*Yes or No: Is placing a judgment token optional?
If yes, & you don't like judgment tokens, then simply don't place any. Your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is redeeming judgment tokens optional?
If yes, just don't redeem them. Again, your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is it mandatory that you take <whatever unit/big tank gun you don't like/is most OP/statisticaly best/will be least fun/etc>?
If it's not.... then make another choice. Pick something you do like, that will be fun.




Its not optional as units gain judgment tokens by just playing the game. Even if you could choose not to use them it would be equivalent to playing a World eaters army and just "not charging" or tau and just "not shooting". Purposefully ignoring your own rules defeats the entire point of the army and the game... like i said before comes off wrong. Nobody is going to enjoy a game knowing you had to ignore a core rule just for them to have a chance.

It might be possible to take a league that is very weak with unoptimized units but honestly against some armies I just don't think that would be enough because of the way their core rules work. Wouldn't be an issue if it was a competitive league but I'm having a hard time seeing how this army wont stomp 99% of casually built armies


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 18:15:07


Post by: tneva82


ccs wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
ccs wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

I was tempted to pick this army up for a new escalation league my friends are doing but the auto wound stacking looks like the least fun mechanics in the game to play against and i dont pick up armies people are just going to hate playing against


Of course I assume it's impossible for you to just not use such abilities/opt to not play with certain weapon options/etc .


I mean theoretically there is nothing to stop me from not using a rule but then it comes off as "not even trying" which I find rude in an even worse way. Nobody in the group is power gaming but i personally would take offense if people were treating you like a toddler not even playing the rules correctly. Then it also opens the door for what rules should you use/not use (its just easier to play with offical codexes and not home brew). I typically go for rule of cool with weapon options so that's not an issue. But an utterly broken core rule there isnt really a way around. Instead I'm just going to do the marines I've had on my shelf of shame for a few years now. Ill think about space dwarves when they aren't the new hotness and some people decide to offload them at a discount


I didn't say anything about playing the rule(s) wrong. Or about making up house rules.

*Yes or No: Is placing a judgment token optional?
If yes, & you don't like judgment tokens, then simply don't place any. Your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is redeeming judgment tokens optional?
If yes, just don't redeem them. Again, your opponents won't object.

*Yes or No: Is it mandatory that you take <whatever unit/big tank gun you don't like/is most OP/statisticaly best/will be least fun/etc>?
If it's not.... then make another choice. Pick something you do like, that will be fun.





So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 19:32:20


Post by: Dudeface


tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad? They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 19:49:59


Post by: Karol


The army works because of the judgment tokens. Without them it stops not only being OP, which is questionable LoV are very good at stomping out worse and bad armies like no other army, but the top of the top ones, but it just becomes bad.

Making people not use their army rules is top of WAAC. If you don't care about winning, why would anyone try to change someone elses army rules? That is like someone telling me I can't use throws in a match or some other dude can't do 3 points throws in basketball.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/18 21:43:53


Post by: Charistoph


tneva82 wrote:
So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

It's not condescending to want to have a fun game with your opponent, and sometimes giving yourself a handicap will do that.

I've been playing Battletech as my primary game for the last year and a half. Early on, I was building crazy lists and exploring the options available, but lately, I haven't been going crazy, even building lists whose synergy is questionable at best. And actually, I've been having fun with them. Part of that is because I'm not caring what happens to the units so I'll toss in to more risky (read "more-stupid-than-smart") maneuvers just for that story-telling opportunity.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 01:36:15


Post by: Asmodios


 Charistoph wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.

It's not condescending to want to have a fun game with your opponent, and sometimes giving yourself a handicap will do that.

I've been playing Battletech as my primary game for the last year and a half. Early on, I was building crazy lists and exploring the options available, but lately, I haven't been going crazy, even building lists whose synergy is questionable at best. And actually, I've been having fun with them. Part of that is because I'm not caring what happens to the units so I'll toss in to more risky (read "more-stupid-than-smart") maneuvers just for that story-telling opportunity.

I consider not net listing and playing entire rules wrong as two different things. I’m never one to net list but I play the rules as they are. For instance if someone was playing chess against me and said “I’ll move all my pieces like they are pawns to give you a chance” I’d be rather offended. I wouldn’t read a chess strategy guide before the game… but I’m also not gonna move my knight like it’s a pawn


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 07:12:45


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 07:28:36


Post by: Charistoph


Asmodios wrote:
I consider not net listing and playing entire rules wrong as two different things. I’m never one to net list but I play the rules as they are. For instance if someone was playing chess against me and said “I’ll move all my pieces like they are pawns to give you a chance” I’d be rather offended. I wouldn’t read a chess strategy guide before the game… but I’m also not gonna move my knight like it’s a pawn

But sometimes forgetting to use optional rule bonuses isn't necessarily playing the rules wrong, either, but adding to that handicap.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 09:34:40


Post by: Dudeface


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 10:55:25


Post by: Amishprn86


Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?


Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 11:13:42


Post by: Dudeface


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?


Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.


Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 11:24:54


Post by: Amishprn86


Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?


Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.


Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.


The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another, what you are saying is more like "I want use En passant or Castling bc i'm better".


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 11:29:05


Post by: Dudeface


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?


Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.


Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.


The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another, what you are saying is more like "I want use En passant or Castling bc i'm better".


And you consider the rules to be entirely unmutable? Because FAQs and errata exist to alter rules if they're not considered fair, it's not unreasonable for any group or players to apply their own in mutual agreement.

Your opponent isn't going to learn to get better if you just spoon feed them easier games, it's better they're cognisant of the changes and why so they can improve and slowly ramp up the difficulty if needed.

Either way, the point is Votann have some mechanics which will be very punishing to some armies in particular and I think its common opinion that the auto wounding and/or tokens needs some tweaking.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 11:41:52


Post by: Amishprn86


Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

So basically be condensing to opponent...

Rather rude.

What core rules you ignore from your armies? I trust you ignore and aren't just trying to get people play soft on you to improve win rate of yours? Do what you say others should do. If you use all rules of your army you have zero qualification to suggest others shouldn't. That' waacing.


You mad?
Uhm... I don't think this comes across the way you think it does.

They're suggesting not using a rule if possible to make an OP army more even to their opponent and you accuse them of WAAC? They're literally suggesting the opposite.
I agree that WAAC really isn't the correct term here. But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


How is it any more bad sportsmanship than opting not to use cps, using less points, giving a VP head start etc? What sort of handicap isn't "bad sportsmanship" to you?

If a Votann player is upsetting their group and dumpstering their opponents and they offer to make a change to provide their opponents a better game, how is that anything other than someone trying to do a good thing?


Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are, imgine playing chess and saying "If i play like i normally do you would lose", just take a weaker list and saying you are having fun with units you like, its seen differently now.


Then it's a subjective issue, if I've beaten someone at chess 10 times in a row because (to apply it to this context), their queen has additional rules. My options are: speak to my opponent, decide that the extra rules are a problem and not use them, or play "badly" so my opponent gets an easier win.

The latter feels a lot more condescending to me, the former is engaging your opponent to find a medium that works for both of you. I'd rather be treat as an intellectual equal and if I can't compete due to an imbalance then address the imbalance. I don't need someone letting me win without my knowledge.


The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another, what you are saying is more like "I want use En passant or Castling bc i'm better".


And you consider the rules to be entirely unmutable? Because FAQs and errata exist to alter rules if they're not considered fair, it's not unreasonable for any group or players to apply their own in mutual agreement.

Your opponent isn't going to learn to get better if you just spoon feed them easier games, it's better they're cognisant of the changes and why so they can improve and slowly ramp up the difficulty if needed.

Either way, the point is Votann have some mechanics which will be very punishing to some armies in particular and I think its common opinion that the auto wounding and/or tokens needs some tweaking.


I am not making up rules for a game I dont own, if you and your friend wants to house rule go for it, but going online and saying "just house rule" is not the norm and you know that. Saying the official game devs patching a game is not the same as house rules too, and i dont understand how you think its the same thing at all.

I think they are too strong too, but only a few things, you play with more troops and no HLFs its a completely different game and not at all too strong. The rules for the army are strong bc 3-4 units can abuse them, I do think they should change too but you need to look at it as a whole, what if someone doesn't want 3 HLFs and would rahter play Thunderkyn? Now those JTs are not strong enough. EDIT: So if i play you and play down with no HLFs but 15 Thunderkyns, are you going to make me house rule now?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 12:04:11


Post by: Dudeface


But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 12:23:45


Post by: Amishprn86


Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.


I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 12:25:34


Post by: Dudeface


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.


I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.


It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 12:32:19


Post by: Amishprn86


Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.


I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.


It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"


House rules are not the same as not playing BiS units..... how can you think they are they same? I will take a bet that almost everyone in here doesn't play meta lists, so showing up to a pick up game with a not meta list is normal, showing up with house rules are not.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 12:40:33


Post by: Dudeface


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.


I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.


It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"


House rules are not the same as not playing BiS units..... how can you think they are they same? I will take a bet that almost everyone in here doesn't play meta lists, so showing up to a pick up game with a not meta list is normal, showing up with house rules are not.


Because this isn't in the context of pick up games. The discussion originated from someone saying they were worried about ruining their groups escalation league. You know a regular play group where you know the players and can discuss a house rule to maintain over time.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 12:50:58


Post by: Amishprn86


Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
But that's you and your subjective opinion as much as mine is my own. If you want to play utterly RAW 100% of the time unless it's a GW change then by all means you do you.

The point your missing is I don't care how you choose to alter your list/game/whatever as long as it's communicated and I have a choice.

"Playing down" to try and give me a better chance, specifically without telling me you're doing it, is to me, bad sportsmanship.


I will tell you, i'll not be a poor sport about it though thats the difference. "Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play them with an off meta list that isn't as strong, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?" This is respectful to my opponent, gets the point across respectfully, and it should make for a better game. If I say "Hey I changed the rules, lets play" and I still end up winning thats an even worst feeling.


It's the same thing.

"Hey Votann seems pretty strong and I really like them, mind if I play without the tokens to reduce some lethality, trying to make a more fun game for both of us?"


House rules are not the same as not playing BiS units..... how can you think they are they same? I will take a bet that almost everyone in here doesn't play meta lists, so showing up to a pick up game with a not meta list is normal, showing up with house rules are not.


Because this isn't in the context of pick up games. The discussion originated from someone saying they were worried about ruining their groups escalation league. You know a regular play group where you know the players and can discuss a house rule to maintain over time.


Even more so, who takes meta lists to league games? Not the average player. Have you seen how good the "army" box is? its terrible, there are 30+ BatReps out right now and the first 5 that I watched all LoV players lost. Bc even though the army is godly strong, its not warriors that are strong lol. The rest of the army isn't even out till late Oct early Nov, why worry about the broken units when balance slate could hit them between now and then.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 14:22:35


Post by: Tyel


I feel "taking a weaker list" is more normal than "I'm going to ignore the rules in the book and insert my own".

Ultimately if its your "friendly local escalation league", massive differences in player skill/interest is usually going to be a bigger issue than faction choice.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 14:38:43


Post by: Dudeface


Tyel wrote:
I feel "taking a weaker list" is more normal than "I'm going to ignore the rules in the book and insert my own".

Ultimately if its your "friendly local escalation league", massive differences in player skill/interest is usually going to be a bigger issue than faction choice.


I don't disagree on any of those points, but I didn't like any solution that wasn't "pick bad units" being branded as bad sportsmanship to solve a potential issue.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 18:09:51


Post by: Insectum7


Tyel wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.


What other metric would you use?

For starters, as someone else mentioned, using sub-faction and unit appearance might be the easiest 'next parameters' to use. But beyond that there are other condiderations like "Can unit X adequately perform it's thematic role?" Like, Genestealers could be a popular unit and show up in competetive lists, but if they're still not good at killing marines in CC, that's also a balance fail. If Ork Tankbustas suck at killing tanks, that's a fail regardless of whether they're competetive or not.

A good current example is Bolters and Lasguns vs. Orks both being 5+ to Wound. It's goofy regardless of tourney results.





League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 18:11:30


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The original premise was just doing it, obviously anyone can sit down and have a discussion with their opponent and work out whatever they want. That will be cool regardless of what it is because it is a friendly agreement.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 19:17:36


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


So aside from the video about the bezerkers from AUspex tactics, I haven't heard anything about them, ie stats/cost. Are they really the most broken thing ever, or is it still the land fortress?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 20:05:49


Post by: Amishprn86


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So aside from the video about the bezerkers from AUspex tactics, I haven't heard anything about them, ie stats/cost. Are they really the most broken thing ever, or is it still the land fortress?


22ppm, or 110 for 5, they are Str and Toughness 5 with 3 attacks, and has Fight on death if they have not fought yet.

2 main weapons, Thunder hammer basically, and a better Power axe. The Thunderhammer is just that, x2, -3, 3D, which makes them Str10.
The Plasma Axe is 2 modes, +1, -3, 2D, or User, -3, 1D double the attacks.

The Plasma Axe is going to be the go to, bc Str 6 doesn't matter when you auto wound on 4+, if something has -1D well it doesn't matter bc you just doubled your attacks as well. 5 of them with 6 attacks is 30, 15 of them will auto wound, you re-roll, now 7.5 more will auto wound for at least 22 wounds, the other 7.5 you still roll to wound which is lets say 2 more, 24, -3 wounds against a Redemptor Dread, the Dread gets AoC making it a 5+ save, you still do 14-15 wounds to the Dread killing it.

Thunder hammers will only be 15 attacks, but into say a knight.... 7.5 auto wound, with re-rolls it'll be a total of 11.25 (so 11) the other 5 hits will wound on 3's so 3 more wounds, thats 14 wounds, get a 5+ save for a total of 4.6 saves (lets say they got 5 saves), that still is 27 wounds to the knight, which the chance of killing it. You could also with a Grim if within 12" remove that Invul.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 22:41:46


Post by: NinthMusketeer


EightFoldPath wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-votann-break-all-the-rules-in-warhammer-40k/

The chapter titles are glorious!
Now THAT is an extreme position. They may be entirely right, but they aren't covering all of the important factors.

I do have some sympathy though despite not currently playing 40k; AoS has been dealing with the ability to deal mortal wounds on hit rolls of 6 being both rampant and problematic since launch. More units in AoS deal mortal wounds via attacks than units which have rend -2* or better which is fundamentally absurd. Now MWs in AoS don't have the same relative lethality--saves are lower and what would have an invul in 40k has a FnP instead. But it still goes to show that this is a matter GW rules writing clearly does not understand, IMO of course.

*in 40k terms that is roughly analogous to AP -3


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 23:25:59


Post by: Amishprn86


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-votann-break-all-the-rules-in-warhammer-40k/

The chapter titles are glorious!
Now THAT is an extreme position. They may be entirely right, but they aren't covering all of the important factors.

I do have some sympathy though despite not currently playing 40k; AoS has been dealing with the ability to deal mortal wounds on hit rolls of 6 being both rampant and problematic since launch. More units in AoS deal mortal wounds via attacks than units which have rend -2* or better which is fundamentally absurd. Now MWs in AoS don't have the same relative lethality--saves are lower and what would have an invul in 40k has a FnP instead. But it still goes to show that this is a matter GW rules writing clearly does not understand, IMO of course.

*in 40k terms that is roughly analogous to AP -3


AoS is my main now, i travelf or GTs for it instead of 40k AoS is in much a better balance spot by far.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/19 23:35:18


Post by: Hecaton


EightFoldPath wrote:
Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?


Yup, it's *real* dumb. GW needs to slow down the power creep or else they'll start bleeding players. The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 08:02:09


Post by: Dysartes


Hecaton wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?


Yup, it's *real* dumb. GW needs to slow down the power creep or else they'll start bleeding players. The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.

The TO response to those complaining isn't just "Git gud?"


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 08:05:59


Post by: Hecaton


 Dysartes wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?


Yup, it's *real* dumb. GW needs to slow down the power creep or else they'll start bleeding players. The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.

The TO response to those complaining isn't just "Git gud?"


No. This isn't Infinity, you can't outsmart broken rules.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 08:08:54


Post by: Dysartes


This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 08:14:42


Post by: Hecaton


 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


No. And it's not "their" players, players would be coming from all over.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 09:23:24


Post by: Dudeface


 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 12:39:36


Post by: EightFoldPath


Hecaton wrote:
The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.

We've had that discussion floating around a few times this edition, I think Tyranids were the last time it came up.

The usual TO requirement is that a book needs to be released x days ahead of the tournament which is usually 7~14 depending on list submission deadlines. My view has always been that TOs should push it out to 4~6 weeks to allow for a FAQ for every book. Although it would have been a shame for a few recent codexes like CSM as they were healthy enough to go straight away. Hopefully if enough TOs band together and make it clear they have to ban new books due to their shoddy writing it could filter upwards to the money men. Anything that could hurt their carefully manufactured FOMO might get an actual response.

I think a limited edition release like this does give a bit of cover to TOs, as even if they don't outright ban the codex, they can at least have a no model no rules policy of disallowing conversions for some of the units.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 14:59:41


Post by: oni


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.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 15:13:17


Post by: Daedalus81


So how would people fix this book?

It seems like making JT's act like Markerlights doesn't fix anything since that first shot will probably be the HLF so removing the token after the unit is dead seems moot.

Points will have ceiling so it has to be rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
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.


Both of those things happen at tournaments. You get people just enjoying the hobby and you have the ultra competitive types. It just sometimes depends on the bracket you fall into, but almost universally everyone I play is a good opponent regardless of their slant.

My FLGS has a yearly tournament where hobby is really the focus - the paint score is crucial to best overall and there's a lore quiz for extra points.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 15:28:27


Post by: Asmodios


 Daedalus81 wrote:
So how would people fix this book?

It seems like making JT's act like Markerlights doesn't fix anything since that first shot will probably be the HLF so removing the token after the unit is dead seems moot.

Points will have ceiling so it has to be rules.


Id say probably just change the bonus that JT's give. Something like
1 Token "reroll failed 1s to hit on the unit"
2 Tokens "Reroll failed 1s and +1 strength"
3 Tokens "reroll failed 1s, +1 strength and 6s auto would"
Just making straight 6s,5s,4s auto would break the math of the game too much. Obviously, I just came up with my example in like 2 seconds and whatever it needs to be checked for balance but even with 0 playtesters, I don't see how someone could see 4s auto wounding and think that was a good idea.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 15:37:57


Post by: Karol


That would make the beam weapons really bad, because the LoV can't get enough of them on the table to reliably get enough 6+ rolls to clear objective takers each turn, and with their speed and only one fast unit, they have to do it, because if they don't they will lose the game to any army with good or even decent secondaries, and there are a few of those. Would make them as powerful as GSC, an army with a gimick that doesn't help the army win within the meta that exists right now. if the marks were to work like that their model line would have to get different stats on some units, and that won't happen till they get a new book in 10th.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 15:58:00


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

It is, because it's giving a pass to the current 40k rules "writers". In fact, I'd more than encourage anyone thinking about purchasing the new Squats to refrain from doing so until GW gets their act together.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 16:21:18


Post by: EightFoldPath


 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.


I think there is shame and disgrace aplenty, but it isn't for TOs and tournament players, it is 100% for the rules writers. Most tournament players just want a wide range of interesting factions with roughly the same power level to play against. You want to go home and be able to say, that was cool, I played A, B, C, D and E faction this weekend, haven't seen B and D in a while and E was an interesting take on their codex.

GWs habit of creating new codexes that ignore the current power level of what currently exists ruins that experience.

I'm quite happy to look at the new LoV models in a one off game down at the FLGS, but just as with Space Marines 2.0 I don't want to play in a single day first green marines/dwarves game 1, then black marines/dwarves game 2 and finally yellow marines/dwarves game 3.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 16:31:43


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 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.


If GW released Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard in the whole squad but were still 5 points per model, would that be okay because you like how they look?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 16:33:36


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

It is, because it's giving a pass to the current 40k rules "writers". In fact, I'd more than encourage anyone thinking about purchasing the new Squats to refrain from doing so until GW gets their act together.


Depends why people are buying them

I agree though, banning them is worse than promoting people abstaining


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 16:55:00


Post by: Hecaton


 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.



Well events can focus on collective enjoyment if GW is undermining that with shoddy rules writing. Blame GW, not the TOs who are merely *discussing* ways to make the game more fair and therefore fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
Depends why people are buying them

I agree though, banning them is worse than promoting people abstaining


Banning them sends the strongest message, but like I said, I've only heard discussion of that so far.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:05:34


Post by: Karol


Why weren't the other armies banned then? LoV at least have bad sides. At their high time armies like harlis, DE or Ad mecha practicaly had no bad sides. Necron right now are playing a soliter, you have to play a few specific armies and have a specific build to counter them, and then the list doesn't work well against anyone else.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:08:35


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Karol wrote:
Why weren't the other armies banned then? LoV at least have bad sides. At their high time armies like harlis, DE or Ad mecha practicaly had no bad sides. Necron right now are playing a soliter, you have to play a few specific armies and have a specific build to counter them, and then the list doesn't work well against anyone else.

Other armies did get banned at local tourney level. It's why I actually didn't encounter certain armies at their peak, like Iron Hands with the 8th edition supplement.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:17:12


Post by: dadx6


So how would people fix this book?

It seems like making JT's act like Markerlights doesn't fix anything since that first shot will probably be the HLF so removing the token after the unit is dead seems moot.

Points will have ceiling so it has to be rules.

Seems like it should be pretty easy, really.

1 Judgement token - re-roll all misses
2 Judgement tokens - 6's auto-wound, re-roll all misses
3 Judgement tokens - 5's and 6's auto-wound but no re-rolls.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:18:02


Post by: Karol


I don't know what kind of a bizzaro place people would ban space marines from tournaments. But again, no one was banning DE or harlequins and they were broken for months in the game. Ad mecha were broken and an anti DE faction on top of everything. I don't remember people saying that all eldar or tyranids should be banned from being played till GW fixs those armies, because if that was the case we would be waiting till today for it.

LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition, same way 2.0 marines were and people seem to be doing the same thing they wanted to back then. Nerf a faction they don't play to adjust them to an edition which is soon be gone. Well GW did that in 8th with marines, and what did that gave us? Most marines being unplayable the entire edition or at best under performing. What is suppose to happen now, GW is suppose to hard nerf LoV, and leave them "balanced" for 9th ed and bad for 10th when same style armies start getting new books, and then people that start LoV can wait anywhere between a few months to a few years to get an update. Just in order people who already got books and updates this edition have fun playin at the very end of it? That is crazy. Not to mention LoV being on their first wave of releases, first codex and a totaly new faction. With bad rules they would share the fate of armies like GSC.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:28:07


Post by: EightFoldPath


Second option - GW fire the current clowns and we try some new rules writers in 10th.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:44:29


Post by: tneva82


 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.



Lov is going to struggle to find opponents unless they self nerf anyway. Boiing roflstomps that are foregone conclusion are boring. When there's no reason to bother putting models out as they aren't needed...

Colour schemes can Be enjoyed without game. But with totally broken army there's no game to be enjoyed. You get same result but better by showing photos and roll dice just for sake of rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EightFoldPath wrote:
Second option - GW fire the current clowns and we try some new rules writers in 10th.


Too late by now. 10th rules too far ahead to change.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:51:05


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:


LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition,


What possible reason do you have to say that? Just to stir the po3y instead of admitting that GW's balance sucks?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 17:55:51


Post by: tneva82


Gw doesn't write codexes with new edition in mind as is. Last book of edition is just as big need of errataes and faq's in new ed as usual.

It's marketing speech for guillible people.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 18:06:52


Post by: Karol


Probably the first batch of 10th books and the core rules for the edition are already done. When you look at LoV, you look at how according to GW 10th is suppose to work. The same way 2.0 marines were a hallmark of how 9th was suppose to be.

So if changes were to be made, we would have a batch of books with a design team with a different mind set. And then it is a dice roll who would have it better. Or we have to wait till mid 10th or 11th ed.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 18:11:25


Post by: Dudeface


Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:


LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition,


What possible reason do you have to say that? Just to stir the po3y instead of admitting that GW's balance sucks?


I've wondered this, the new weapon type and fixed advances seem like something they might try out. Likewise its contemporary peer is IG who also have an auto wound mechanic assuming it stays. Might be nothing but some odd choices otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it's dishonest to claim they make them "with the next edition in mind" so much as "there's some changes we needed to try out and/or place that nugget of the idea out there for people"


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 19:47:25


Post by: EightFoldPath


tneva82 wrote:
EightFoldPath wrote:
Second option - GW fire the current clowns and we try some new rules writers in 10th.

Too late by now. 10th rules too far ahead to change.

As the saying goes, "the second best time to start your diet is today".


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 19:49:54


Post by: Karol


Hecaton wrote:
Karol wrote:


LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition,


What possible reason do you have to say that? Just to stir the po3y instead of admitting that GW's balance sucks?


There is few armies left to update in this edition. The last few codex always were writen with next edition in mind. The fact that GW writes their rules the way they do has nothing to do with it. When sm 2.0 came out, And 8th SoB, the rules set they had was clearly mirroring the early armies of 9th ed and not armies that came out in 8th.

I don't know what a po3y is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface 806816 11433883 wrote:
I think it's dishonest to claim they make them "with the next edition in mind" so much as "there's some changes we needed to try out and/or place that nugget of the idea out there for people"


GW writes and works on their rules months in advance, by the time they were starting to work on the LoV, they probably not only had an idea what core 10th ed core rules will look like, but else early 10th codex.

Prior edition books, from what I have been told, even had rules in them which did nothing in the edition they came out in. Also designing LoV with 9th ed in mind would be just stupid, even if they get a SoB style early 10th second wave, they will still come out after marines and what ever is in the starter box with them, most people that gave good leaks said it is going to be tyranids. It is a new army, with no existing player base, it can not have bad rules or fizzle out when it comes out, because it would hurt GW. The rest is quartarly earning for the investors, end fiscal years looking in a way GW wants etc.

The is the "testing" when a book is out. when a book is out the next few are already done, often the next one is already printed.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 20:59:32


Post by: Dudeface


Karol in corporate circles they treasure surprise and impact with new releases, they won't drop a codex 9-12 months before 10th ed with anything to suggest it's not a current edition book because they want the shock and surprise of the new edition announcement.

The main driving factor is if they announce that 10th is coming and all books from votann onward are 10th ed books, every other army is now a sunken cost for people and they won't be buying codex and models for armies they know the rules aren't going to be relevant for.

So it's best for them to drop subtle ideas and changes in behaviour shaped by the next edition rather than spelling it out as that would damage sales. If the army being overpowered is all it takes for a commercial success then I think the community needs a look in the mirror frankly.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 21:00:32


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Dudeface wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.
A lie by omission is still a lie, you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
I think it's dishonest to claim they make them "with the next edition in mind" so much as "there's some changes we needed to try out and/or place that nugget of the idea out there for people"
I've seen both sides of that; rules or design elements only become clear in the context of a subsequently released edition, and books released under that claim which had no more compatibility than average. I think it is worth wondering where that claim is coming from; is is a message the devs really want to send or is it something mandated by an advertising department? Regardless I agree with you in that it isn't good for GW to make a claim that turns out to be false in effect, even if they believed it at the time.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/20 23:48:38


Post by: Karol


Dudeface wrote:
Karol in corporate circles they treasure surprise and impact with new releases, they won't drop a codex 9-12 months before 10th ed with anything to suggest it's not a current edition book because they want the shock and surprise of the new edition announcement.

The main driving factor is if they announce that 10th is coming and all books from votann onward are 10th ed books, every other army is now a sunken cost for people and they won't be buying codex and models for armies they know the rules aren't going to be relevant for.

So it's best for them to drop subtle ideas and changes in behaviour shaped by the next edition rather than spelling it out as that would damage sales. If the army being overpowered is all it takes for a commercial success then I think the community needs a look in the mirror frankly.


GW droped the first edition of AoS with 0 months preparation. They said something new next month, and then WFB is dead. That is how GW operates.
GW doesn't have to announce anything by the way. Take two or three last books from the few last editions and tell me they were not writen with the next edition in mind. 2.0 marines had the lay out of all 9th ed armies, not of 8th ed ones. And one can say many things about 2.0 marines, but not that their rule sets were subtle, they litteraly had 2 , at least, extra set of rules comparing to other books. It wasn't even the fact that they were more powerful, they just had more of them. And looking at LoV it looks like future books will have ways to circumvent inv saves, clear objectives and GW is really trying to make non dread and not skimer vehicles worth taking. As wasted money goes. Well with so few armies left to do, I say GL to the person who thinks that 9th will last for years, and for those that want to play the game it doesn't matter how much it is a waste. New rules come they will have to buy or pirate them, if they want to play, and adjust what is in their armies after update. Unless they get supper lucky, like GK players, and their army practicaly doesn't change.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 03:21:21


Post by: tneva82


Karol wrote:


There is few armies left to update in this edition. The last few codex always were writen with next edition in mind. The fact that GW writes their rules the way they do has nothing to do with it. When sm 2.0 came out, And 8th SoB, the rules set they had was clearly mirroring the early armies of 9th ed and not armies that came out in 8th.

I don't know what a po3y is.


[.


Yea that's why last codexes have rules that don't work at all in new edition right? Literally rules that do nothing...clearly made with knowledge of what coming...Oh and then get new book among first in new edition. So well designed for new ed needs new book to work properly in new ed. Lol.

That claim is just marketing speech so guillible people give cash to gw. It has no basis at all in reality.


And you bit it whole. Gw marketing department laughing hard.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 04:59:31


Post by: Hecaton


Karol wrote:
The last few codex always were writen with next edition in mind.


What support do you have for this statement?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 05:27:53


Post by: kodos


there are some statement from GW and former GW designers and the so called "mid-edition design shift" as we see a change in codex design in the middle of the releases which would also be the same time GW would need to start working on the new Edition

it might not be intended at all but simply because the same people are working on the new stuff means that they are influenced by it while writing something new for the old edition

that it happens that a new Codex does not work at all with the next Edition can have several reason, it might be older but was not released earlier, the rules it was based on did not made into the new Edition (because it was written at an early stage of development) or the designer writing the Codex did never see the full rules for the new Edition at all

but we know that not all books released during one Edition are on the same design level and it is not just power-creep to make each new release stronger but a change in design which should not be there if everything is written with the same core system in mind

tneva82 wrote:
Yea that's why last codexes have rules that don't work at all in new edition right?

just because GW sucks at writing rules does not mean the books were not written with the new Edition in the back

and rules are something GW does not care anyway as those are disposable as soon as the books sold, while models are the thing that stays
so the same way Warhammer Fantasy models in 8th were already designed for a Skirmish game (while the rules were not) Votann are made for what is coming, even if the rules are not (because no one cares about rules that are thrown in the pin in 6 months anyway)


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 05:46:41


Post by: Lord Damocles


WaIt aNd SeE until next edition!


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 06:30:57


Post by: Dudeface


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?


Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.
A lie by omission is still a lie, you know.


Well, if ignoring a whole book (I.e. all the rules) is similar to ignoring 1 rule with the intent of making the game more pleasing for your opponent, which is why they suggest banning it, then the following applies:

Yeah, if you need a handicap you just build to a lower points total/take less optimized options. Changing the rules isn't cool, changing the rules in all but name and pretending not to be even less so.


But the core concept of it being bad sportsmanship is accurate; it is approaching gameplay in bad faith. There are plenty of easier and more straightforward ways to introduce a handicap that don't involve breaking/ignoring rules; you know that, and we all know you know that.


Well bc 1 is seen as a challenge and the other is condescending. I play down all the time, you dont need to rub it into someones face that you are.


The rules are the rules and seen as bad to change no matter what for 1 player vs another


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 07:54:53


Post by: a_typical_hero


LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:
Spoiler:


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 08:11:53


Post by: Hecaton


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


Good.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 09:05:31


Post by: Slipspace


The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 09:14:11


Post by: tneva82


Slipspace wrote:
The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.


But would they sell as well if they didn't do that?

GW doesn't design rules to be good game. Everything they do is aimed for one thing only. Models sell.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 09:32:04


Post by: Slipspace


tneva82 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.


But would they sell as well if they didn't do that?

Yes. The number of people playing tournaments, or even competitively, is relatively small. The vast majority of people don't care about chasing the meta but they do ultimately care about unbalanced rules because playing games against armies vastly more powerful than your own just isn't fun.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 09:38:48


Post by: kodos


a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments
which itself is nothing special, was the same with Orks until the new Codex and units got a regular release

so nothing to worry about unless it stays after the regular release and 2 week FAQ


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 11:02:32


Post by: Not Online!!!


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


Good.


"Verbotskultur" is alive and well..friendly cultural banter aside... I doubt this will do much, gw will neither Change their release system nor actually imoroving rulesdesign via the replacement of certain writers.
Telling it still is though, about the state of the game, it was clear that AoC and invul inflation would have consequences.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 11:10:52


Post by: Dudeface


Not Online!!! wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:
Spoiler:


Good.


"Verbotskultur" is alive and well..friendly cultural banter aside... I doubt this will do much, gw will neither Change their release system nor actually imoroving rulesdesign via the replacement of certain writers.
Telling it still is though, about the state of the game, it was clear that AoC and invul inflation would habe consequences.


You're going to have to explain that one for me, it's the auto-wounding that seems to be the biggest bug bear here and is neither related directly to AoC or Invulns. The rail weapons benefit lopsidedly from the auto-wounds because of always counting as a natural 6, without those the army is immediately dialled right back and then likely the biggest offender might be the army wide 5++/4++ trait, which needs knocking down a pip to match every other army in the game, but honestly wouldn't be absurdly horrid if the judgement mechanics were toned right back.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 11:12:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


Slipspace wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
The really frustrating thing about LoV is GW literally had complete carte blanche to build the army from the ground up. There were very few preconceptions about the army other than them being T4 and slow. They're not having to work around concepts that might be inherently bad or overpowered in the current edition. And they still messed it up.

Take Judgement Tokens, for example. It seems to me that the only reason they count the auto-wound as a roll of a 6 is because they have a small number of effects that trigger on a 6 to wound. But they didn't have to do that. They could easily have just not included any abilities that care about a specific wound roll. It's amateurish and shoddy design at its absolute worst. I hope other tournaments follow suit and ban the book until GW fixes it.


But would they sell as well if they didn't do that?

Yes. The number of people playing tournaments, or even competitively, is relatively small. The vast majority of people don't care about chasing the meta but they do ultimately care about unbalanced rules because playing games against armies vastly more powerful than your own just isn't fun.


I dare say, with whfb in mind, that this is the correct assessement


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:17:53


Post by: Rihgu


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


maybe somewhat ironically, but I think the game state would improve if this were the norm. If big tournaments/events had blanket bans on all codexes at release and waited for first FAQ/2 months/IDK I'm not the tournament expert here, GW would (theoretically) react by releasing more usable books as they wouldn't be able to rely on the surge of competitive players. They'd still get the "new shiny" painters/players, but if we're supposing 9th edition is Tournament Edition, as some on this forum have called it, then competitive folk must be a big enough slice of the pie for GW to care.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:18:41


Post by: Not Online!!!


Dudeface wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:
Spoiler:


Good.


"Verbotskultur" is alive and well..friendly cultural banter aside... I doubt this will do much, gw will neither Change their release system nor actually imoroving rulesdesign via the replacement of certain writers.
Telling it still is though, about the state of the game, it was clear that AoC and invul inflation would habe consequences.


You're going to have to explain that one for me, it's the auto-wounding that seems to be the biggest bug bear here and is neither related directly to AoC or Invulns. The rail weapons benefit lopsidedly from the auto-wounds because of always counting as a natural 6, without those the army is immediately dialled right back and then likely the biggest offender might be the army wide 5++/4++ trait, which needs knocking down a pip to match every other army in the game, but honestly wouldn't be absurdly horrid if the judgement mechanics were toned right back.


Again, i am talking about the general inflation of Defensive and offensive increases.
It was bound to lead to such increases, that is my angle.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:21:37


Post by: Dudeface


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.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:23:54


Post by: Daedalus81


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


maybe somewhat ironically, but I think the game state would improve if this were the norm. If big tournaments/events had blanket bans on all codexes at release and waited for first FAQ/2 months/IDK I'm not the tournament expert here, GW would (theoretically) react by releasing more usable books as they wouldn't be able to rely on the surge of competitive players. They'd still get the "new shiny" painters/players, but if we're supposing 9th edition is Tournament Edition, as some on this forum have called it, then competitive folk must be a big enough slice of the pie for GW to care.


Until GW can show some restraint and fix the codex release process then I'm for banning books at tournaments ( 5+ rounds, at least ) until their first FAQ is out.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:28:02


Post by: Platuan4th


Maybe, and this may be a weird thought, if they want to reduce the amount of dice rolling they should actually just reduce the amount of dice needed to be rolled and stop giving everything 3-4 shots and 5-6 attacks?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:39:13


Post by: Valkyrie


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 don't get this mindset of having to speed up the game as much as possible. The game's already much quicker than an equivalent game in 4th-7th Edition, if we want to go the whole hog why not just roll off at the start and the highest number wins?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 12:55:53


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Daedalus81 wrote:
So how would people fix this book?


Well for the tokens I would try easy fixes. So something like

Tokens on a unit disappear at the end of the turn after the squats target it in the shooting or charge phases (they shoot it or charge it).
OR
Hard cap, at any one time can't have more than 3 units with 1 token, 2 with 2 and 1 with 3.
OR
All tokens disappear at the end of the squat players turn.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 13:01:51


Post by: Slipspace


 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe, and this may be a weird thought, if they want to reduce the amount of dice rolling they should actually just reduce the amount of dice needed to be rolled and stop giving everything 3-4 shots and 5-6 attacks?

Heresy!

Seriously, though, this is the way to reduce dice rolling, not some overpowered bypass system that causes more problems than it solves. There's simply no need for, say, a Hormagaunt to have 3 attacks, or a SM with a chainsword to get 4, especially with all the rerolls and bonuses to hit and wound units can trivially get access to. On a related note, it's really uninspiring to see the Kahls give out a simple reroll 1s aura instead of doing something genuinely new and interesting.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 13:14:44


Post by: jaredb


I don't mind units getting some extra dice, I find re-rolls are the worst for slowing down the game. I remember they made all twin-linked weapons double shots, in order to reduce re-rolls, but now we have both.

I'd prefer that there wasn't re-rolls in the game at all, except for the command re-roll strat. That'd make things a bit more straightforward.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 14:02:26


Post by: Dudeface


Valkyrie 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 don't get this mindset of having to speed up the game as much as possible. The game's already much quicker than an equivalent game in 4th-7th Edition, if we want to go the whole hog why not just roll off at the start and the highest number wins?


Because you clearly never played into 8th ed dakkadakkadakka with big blobs of shootas etc. or high shot units with full rerolls to hit and/or wound. below are 2 very good points on how and why the game can be streamlined. It's not about "time" it's about needless effort for minimum difference in output in a lot of circumstances.

Slipspace wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
Maybe, and this may be a weird thought, if they want to reduce the amount of dice rolling they should actually just reduce the amount of dice needed to be rolled and stop giving everything 3-4 shots and 5-6 attacks?

Heresy!

Seriously, though, this is the way to reduce dice rolling, not some overpowered bypass system that causes more problems than it solves. There's simply no need for, say, a Hormagaunt to have 3 attacks, or a SM with a chainsword to get 4, especially with all the rerolls and bonuses to hit and wound units can trivially get access to. On a related note, it's really uninspiring to see the Kahls give out a simple reroll 1s aura instead of doing something genuinely new and interesting.


I prefer the below option more but the inflation in attacks is definitely a large factor.

jaredb wrote:I don't mind units getting some extra dice, I find re-rolls are the worst for slowing down the game. I remember they made all twin-linked weapons double shots, in order to reduce re-rolls, but now we have both.

I'd prefer that there wasn't re-rolls in the game at all, except for the command re-roll strat. That'd make things a bit more straightforward.


This is my thought process, If I have to pick out 1's from 45 dice, reroll, pick out remaining hits, roll to wound, reroll 1's from the effort, pass on to save. It's a lot of extra rolling with more straightforward ways round it, I'm sure bigger maths brains than my own can work out where auto-wound on 6's etc places in comparison to reroll 1's on hits and wounds.


Edit: smaller armies is another option ofc!


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 14:25:09


Post by: Irbis


 kodos wrote:
there are some statement from GW and former GW designers and the so called "mid-edition design shift" as we see a change in codex design in the middle of the releases which would also be the same time GW would need to start working on the new Edition

And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?

Which is sidenote a pity because it would be neat to have sidegrade formations rewarding fluffy, weaker builds like SM demi company or IG tank regiment but it is what it is...

tneva82 wrote:
GW doesn't design rules to be good game. Everything they do is aimed for one thing only. Models sell.

I like how people always repeat this 4chan nonsense when it's literally never true and all evidence points against it. Deathwatch, a shiny new range of better proportioned SM, was released with trash rules then nerfed five times in a row. Primaris had garbage rules for 1.5 edition and needed three straight buffs in a row to even get to a mediocre status (and some units, like Reivers, remain gak to this very day and only sell because models are nice). Ditto with GSC, bad for most of their existence.

What gets buffed is pet army of inept writers (*cough* Phil Kelly *cough* Eldar *cough* that Tau dude who literally hates doing math *cough* Tau *cough* Cruddace) unless you really believe GW wanted to sell mountains of old, ugly, trash resin models of Dark Reapers in 8th and Spiders in 7th while getting few sales of updated, expensive plastic aspects?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 14:58:28


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I don't really think it's possible to look at these new rules and avoid the conclusion that GW is purposely ramping up creep to sell models. They know LoV will be broken horribly at launch.

They have to know that major tournaments are taking steps to ban them outright.

If GW does it's normal bait and switch of Release then Nerf, it's just more proof I say.
I really cannot defend this as incompetence now. You're telling me the entire GW rules team thought it was a good idea to give standard infantry, rail guns like the tau have? And create new and ludicrously broken abilities like spill over on wounds now counts towards the entire unit?

There is no possible way this is still incompetence. Now that claim is no longer the null position. The null position is these unit stats are profit driven.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 15:06:08


Post by: kodos


 Irbis wrote:
And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?
from everything we heard, you must have too as you are long enough around, was that GW planned something different for 8th wich was skipped because of how big AoS failed

but than, it might simply be that GW is just that bad at writing rules no one there knows what they are doing at all and they just keep going because it sells not matter what


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 15:09:28


Post by: Asmodios


Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 15:09:36


Post by: Tyel


 Irbis wrote:
And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?


Well 8th was a reset.

I think its reasonable to say Marines 2.0+Sisters were written with the new edition in mind, as they got purity bonuses which were as yet unknown in 8th edition 40k. All 9th edition books would subsequently get their own versions - on top of improved stat lines, chapter tactics, relics/warlord traits/stratagems etc. The fact you can identify rules which would be obsolete in 9th doesn't really change this - as both were still always going to get new books as well.

I guess the mid-edition change for 9th has been GW upping the defensive stats. With AoC, higher T, higher saves, etc. Rather than just upping damage as they largely did through 2020+2021. Whether that informs us on 10th however remains to be seen.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 15:35:10


Post by: Dudeface


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't really think it's possible to look at these new rules and avoid the conclusion that GW is purposely ramping up creep to sell models. They know LoV will be broken horribly at launch.

They have to know that major tournaments are taking steps to ban them outright.

If GW does it's normal bait and switch of Release then Nerf, it's just more proof I say.
I really cannot defend this as incompetence now. You're telling me the entire GW rules team thought it was a good idea to give standard infantry, rail guns like the tau have? And create new and ludicrously broken abilities like spill over on wounds now counts towards the entire unit?

There is no possible way this is still incompetence. Now that claim is no longer the null position. The null position is these unit stats are profit driven.


How do you explain balanced/lukewarm knights, chaos knights, CSM and daemons that preceded them then?


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 15:45:04


Post by: Toofast


 Rihgu wrote:
I think the game state would improve if this were the norm. If big tournaments/events had blanket bans on all codexes at release and waited for first FAQ/2 months

then competitive folk must be a big enough slice of the pie for GW to care.


How is GW supposed to make their changes without data from big tournaments? If they knew how to balance things with their own internal playtesting, we wouldn't be in this position. They need to see how the army does out in the wild in the hands of skilled players trying to break the game, against other skilled players doing the same.

Competitive tournament players make up a very small % of the overall playerbase, but a much higher % of the overall spending. The guys in my local group that travel for GTs are constantly buying and painting up new armies to keep up with the meta and be able to play practice games against what they expect to face at GTs. Sure it's only a few guys out of 30 people that play at this particular store, but they make up a very large portion of that stores 40k revenue. It's like mobile games where the top 1% of players are doing 80% of the spending (obv not that extreme but you get the idea). Players who just care about fluff and playing garagehammer with their 20 year old space marine army are definitely the vast majority of the playerbase, but probably the part GW cares the least about.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:08:44


Post by: Karol


Dudeface 806816 11434149 wrote:
How do you explain balanced/lukewarm knights, chaos knights, CSM and daemons that preceded them then?


Demons are lukewarm? The only thing that keeps them restrained is their secondaries. For example they are the only army which doesn't have to worry about inv ignoring of LoV.
And there is always a difference between a faction with already existing model lines and fandoms, and something that comes out for the first time. Only necron were meh at day 1, as a new model line. We can be rather sure that WE are going to be very detailed in their design and their rules are going to be very good.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:11:36


Post by: Backspacehacker


Bold assuming GW listens to any meaningful feed back.

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.

People have been asking GW clarification on this since 30k dropped and they recent faq basically addressed none of that.

The point is GW does not listen to feed back, hardly ever they only go off of their internal play testing. Hell rember when flying circus was a thing in 8th? The only reason that was nerfed was because some of the GW rule writers went to LOV and got absolutely demolished by it and itt was only after that, GW put in the rule of 3.

It would be nice if GW listened to the community but they really don't.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:14:28


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Bold assuming GW listens to any meaningful feed back.


GW has changes though! They have social media!


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:16:13


Post by: Karol


GW listens to the people they care about, the buyers who buy up the stuff they make and the people they anwser to. when both groups are happy, GW is happy too.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:18:43


Post by: Backspacehacker


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Bold assuming GW listens to any meaningful feed back.


GW has changes though! They have social media!


And a Twitter!

But really, it's been clear for a long time GW does NOT listen to anyone outside of their play tester bubble and the sad fact is whoever is play testing has literally no idea what they are doing and or lack any ability to critically think in terms of how to break rules.

Another example in 30k or pure broke Bs. IH can replace their plasma pistols for grav pistols which a grav pistol has haywire which can glance a vehicle on a...4+ I think and pen on a 6. Any way because no one play tested, you can equip a moritat with 2 of them, a special gun slinging hq that can deep strike. He then has the ability to do something called chain fire, which let's you shoot each pistol 6 times, hitting on a 2 +. So you have a model that's about 120 pts, that can deep strike and kill a super heavy take in a single round of shooting.

This is something people found within like 10 min of the leaks being out.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:23:33


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


Karol wrote:

Demons are lukewarm? The only thing that keeps them restrained is their secondaries. For example they are the only army which doesn't have to worry about inv ignoring of LoV.


Demons aren't the only ones...Imperial Guard don't have to worry about it either since the couple units that can get an invuln have character protection.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:31:13


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
Dudeface 806816 11434149 wrote:
How do you explain balanced/lukewarm knights, chaos knights, CSM and daemons that preceded them then?


Demons are lukewarm? The only thing that keeps them restrained is their secondaries. For example they are the only army which doesn't have to worry about inv ignoring of LoV.
And there is always a difference between a faction with already existing model lines and fandoms, and something that comes out for the first time. Only necron were meh at day 1, as a new model line. We can be rather sure that WE are going to be very detailed in their design and their rules are going to be very good.


Tons of new models are meh day 1.

Votann is just GW cutting corners to get the book out in time to run with the models. And now the community will rage at people like Brandt or the playtesters when this is all likely out of their control and they have to try and clean up the mess.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:32:45


Post by: DeadliestIdiot


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? Essentially each book becomes a rush of "get the thing written and working first and if there's time do some balance changes; we can always fix it after publication." It's possible that the codices that came out and weren't broken came together a bit smoother or had more dedicated attention (or both). Based on the rumor that the Imperial Guard codex was sent back to the rules team four times (no clue how accurate that is), I've sort of gotten the feeling that the Imperial Guard codex was supposed to come out a few codices ago. If that's the case, then perhaps LoV wasn't intended to be this early? On the other hand, I've heard arguments that Imperial Guard should be next as it's unlikely that GW would want to introduce two new codices back to back (since WE are technically a new codex albeit not a new faction), which would mean that LoV would either have to have been intended to have Imperial Guard or Space Marines 2.0 between it and World Eaters. This is of course completely speculative so could be completely wrong...but I'm curious to hear if anyone has hear anything that either supports or refutes it.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:35:01


Post by: Hecaton


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote:


How is GW supposed to make their changes without data from big tournaments? If they knew how to balance things with their own internal playtesting, we wouldn't be in this position. They need to see how the army does out in the wild in the hands of skilled players trying to break the game, against other skilled players doing the same.


Then they shouldn't release codexes; they should release beta rules to the community.

Hopefully GW gets the hint and starts playtesting more. And hopefully Votann players properly direct their ire towards GW and not the other players who don't want to auto-lose.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 17:54:52


Post by: JNAProductions


Karol wrote:
Dudeface 806816 11434149 wrote:
How do you explain balanced/lukewarm knights, chaos knights, CSM and daemons that preceded them then?


Demons are lukewarm? The only thing that keeps them restrained is their secondaries. For example they are the only army which doesn't have to worry about inv ignoring of LoV.
And there is always a difference between a faction with already existing model lines and fandoms, and something that comes out for the first time. Only necron were meh at day 1, as a new model line. We can be rather sure that WE are going to be very detailed in their design and their rules are going to be very good.
Yes, they resist that one mechanic that's on about a dozen weapons across the entire game.
Tell you what, Karol-we'll give GK the same thing, but increase their cost by 80%, give them mediocre statline buffs, and strip out most of the other special rules.

Nurgle Daemons, at the least, are pretty damn mediocre, and thoroughly uninteresting.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 18:50:34


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
Dudeface 806816 11434149 wrote:
How do you explain balanced/lukewarm knights, chaos knights, CSM and daemons that preceded them then?


Demons are lukewarm? The only thing that keeps them restrained is their secondaries. For example they are the only army which doesn't have to worry about inv ignoring of LoV.


yeah, and 90% of their datasheet are overcosted and the codex options are anemic and not at all in line with the rest of 9th ed codexes


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 19:11:53


Post by: Dudeface


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.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 19:16:55


Post by: TheBestBucketHead


Daemons are just the Paper to the Votann's Rock, but only for this one specific build. And sometimes T'au.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/21 21:01:53


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Asmodios wrote:
Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm


I remember it working Great with Knights and Iron Hands Dreadnaught lists. After 1 major banned them, they basically got hyper nerfed.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 00:33:51


Post by: Altruizine


Toofast wrote:
 Rihgu wrote:
I think the game state would improve if this were the norm. If big tournaments/events had blanket bans on all codexes at release and waited for first FAQ/2 months

then competitive folk must be a big enough slice of the pie for GW to care.


How is GW supposed to make their changes without data from big tournaments? If they knew how to balance things with their own internal playtesting, we wouldn't be in this position. They need to see how the army does out in the wild in the hands of skilled players trying to break the game, against other skilled players doing the same.

Competitive tournament players make up a very small % of the overall playerbase, but a much higher % of the overall spending. The guys in my local group that travel for GTs are constantly buying and painting up new armies to keep up with the meta and be able to play practice games against what they expect to face at GTs. Sure it's only a few guys out of 30 people that play at this particular store, but they make up a very large portion of that stores 40k revenue. It's like mobile games where the top 1% of players are doing 80% of the spending (obv not that extreme but you get the idea). Players who just care about fluff and playing garagehammer with their 20 year old space marine army are definitely the vast majority of the playerbase, but probably the part GW cares the least about.

Your post reminds me of this famous piece from The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

GW can hire and pay playtesters to the standards necessary to ensure GW rules come out of the oven fully baked instead of wet and raw in the middle.

I actually can't think of a better way for the community to prod them in that direction than banning codexes from tournament play.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 05:18:45


Post by: Hecaton


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Altruizine wrote:

Your post reminds me of this famous piece from The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

GW can hire and pay playtesters to the standards necessary to ensure GW rules come out of the oven fully baked instead of wet and raw in the middle.

I actually can't think of a better way for the community to prod them in that direction than banning codexes from tournament play.


I really do want to see if I can get near some of them at LVO to hear if they complain about "American players abusing rules" again.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 06:21:36


Post by: Asmodios


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm


I remember it working Great with Knights and Iron Hands Dreadnaught lists. After 1 major banned them, they basically got hyper nerfed.

I could be wrong but I remember both of these being toned down after winning LVO. If I remember correctly knights with “the loyal 32” dominating LVO then we got the changes to how CP were generated. The iron hands was the exact same thing with like 4-5 of the top 10 at LVO being iron hands and then they were nuked after


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 07:19:20


Post by: EviscerationPlague


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Altruizine wrote:

Your post reminds me of this famous piece from The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527

GW can hire and pay playtesters to the standards necessary to ensure GW rules come out of the oven fully baked instead of wet and raw in the middle.

I actually can't think of a better way for the community to prod them in that direction than banning codexes from tournament play.


I really do want to see if I can get near some of them at LVO to hear if they complain about "American players abusing rules" again.

Such a tired complaint. Rules shouldn't be able to be exploited to BEGIN with, and all that does is excuse gakky writing.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 07:43:24


Post by: Slipspace


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I remember it working Great with Knights and Iron Hands Dreadnaught lists. After 1 major banned them, they basically got hyper nerfed.


You remember wrong. Castellans and IH both got nerfed after utterly dominating two different LVOs.

Toofast wrote:How is GW supposed to make their changes without data from big tournaments? If they knew how to balance things with their own internal playtesting, we wouldn't be in this position. They need to see how the army does out in the wild in the hands of skilled players trying to break the game, against other skilled players doing the same.

There's this thing called playtesting. Maybe you've heard of it? You're never going to catch 100% of problems with internal playtesting, but if people are noticing the obviously broken combos minutes after a Codex leaks then your internal procedures are to blame. It's not our job to balance this stuff and maybe if more tournaments and groups went down this route it might force GW to react by changing their internal processes. I think it's reasonable to accept, even expect, some measure of imbalance at release, but not to the extent we've seen with some Codices recently. Harlequins, Tau, Nids and now LoV were all monumentally busted on release. That's a pathetic strike rate for GW.

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 an example of this, just look at a very common problem we've seen time and again from new Codices. In lots of cases we see that spamming a powerful unit utterly breaks the game. The most recent, most egregious example of this was the Void Weaver. In 8th edition they had to introduce the Rule of 3 because the designers didn't consider the possibility of someone taking 7 Hive Tyrants or 11 PBCs. To me, that's indicative of a lack of playtesting, probably exacerbated by the internal culture at GW being skewed away from building armies like that. Nobody at GW would consider building an army with 7 of the same HQ or 9 of the same gunboat because it goes against the fluff and feel of the army. We saw the same thing with SM 2.0, where the designers seemed genuinely shocked that people were simply remaining in Devastator Doctrine for the whole game, because to them it made no sense when the background dictated SM armies should move through the Doctrines as the game progressed. But as a designer your job is to try to break your creation. The first question you should ask once you've got a unit's stats and cost figured out is "what happens if I spam the maximum number of these things".


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 07:53:35


Post by: Amishprn86


Asmodios wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm


I remember it working Great with Knights and Iron Hands Dreadnaught lists. After 1 major banned them, they basically got hyper nerfed.

I could be wrong but I remember both of these being toned down after winning LVO. If I remember correctly knights with “the loyal 32” dominating LVO then we got the changes to how CP were generated. The iron hands was the exact same thing with like 4-5 of the top 10 at LVO being iron hands and then they were nuked after


Its really funny bc both those lists were only a problem in ITC, play Maelstrom or Eternal and they while killed a lot, still lost games lol.

But I agree banning isn't healthy for the game bc of power creep, now banning bc they are not fully release yet 100% on board with that bc it just pushes people into 3rd party which if no models being out how do we know the correct sizes? how do we know if that community is struggling and trying to get local support, etc....


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 09:49:22


Post by: tneva82


 Valkyrie 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 don't get this mindset of having to speed up the game as much as possible. The game's already much quicker than an equivalent game in 4th-7th Edition, if we want to go the whole hog why not just roll off at the start and the highest number wins?


It's faster only because game is so stupidly lethal...

In terms of play speed SECOND EDITION is faster. Only way it's so fast is because everything dies and after 2nd turn there's generally not much of an army left for one side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
And that's why 7th edition big mid edition design shift (decurions) was completely abandoned in 8th?
from everything we heard, you must have too as you are long enough around, was that GW planned something different for 8th wich was skipped because of how big AoS failed

but than, it might simply be that GW is just that bad at writing rules no one there knows what they are doing at all and they just keep going because it sells not matter what


Just one problem with that theory. Leadtimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
[
I think its reasonable to say Marines 2.0+Sisters were written with the new edition in mind, as they got purity bonuses which were as yet unknown in 8th edition 40k.


Ahahaha. Sisters written in 9e in mind? With special rules that were invalidated in 9e? With new book among first in 9e?

Claim that sisters were with 9e in mind is just marketing speech for guillible people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote:

How is GW supposed to make their changes without data from big tournaments? If they knew how to balance things with their own internal playtesting, we wouldn't be in this position. They need to see how the army does out in the wild in the hands of skilled players trying to break the game, against other skilled players doing the same.


Sale numbers. Which is where decisions comes anyway.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 10:21:02


Post by: Not Online!!!


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.



League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 12:36:21


Post by: Tyel


Which rules are concerning you Tneva?

Its like the fact an ever increasing number of units ignored the Heavy -1 to hit rule. The fact that this was going to be removed for non-infantry in 9th wasn't an oversight - the fact it was being thrown out in the second half of 8th was probably with the knowledge that this was going to go - and so armies might as well get it now, not later.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 16:19:21


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Amishprn86 wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm


I remember it working Great with Knights and Iron Hands Dreadnaught lists. After 1 major banned them, they basically got hyper nerfed.

I could be wrong but I remember both of these being toned down after winning LVO. If I remember correctly knights with “the loyal 32” dominating LVO then we got the changes to how CP were generated. The iron hands was the exact same thing with like 4-5 of the top 10 at LVO being iron hands and then they were nuked after


Its really funny bc both those lists were only a problem in ITC, play Maelstrom or Eternal and they while killed a lot, still lost games lol.

But I agree banning isn't healthy for the game bc of power creep, now banning bc they are not fully release yet 100% on board with that bc it just pushes people into 3rd party which if no models being out how do we know the correct sizes? how do we know if that community is struggling and trying to get local support, etc....

Banning AND abstaining from buying both need to be done


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 16:50:13


Post by: Dysartes


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.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 17:27:35


Post by: Karol


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.

It gives me this distinct rules for thee, not for me feel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Banning definently isnt the way to go if people want the codex re tuned. GW needs to see LOV dominate if you want them to be re balanced kind of like when nids won almost all the top spots at nova one year.

As much as i think they do need to be tweeked it can actually be relatively minor as i said earlier. I think a slight change to the judgment token buffs would leave them in a (very competative but not broken) state. The JTs just break the math of the game too much atm


I remember it working Great with Knights and Iron Hands Dreadnaught lists. After 1 major banned them, they basically got hyper nerfed.


Or salamander aggresor list. One week of wins, and we have not yet seen salamanders back in 9th.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 17:55:30


Post by: EviscerationPlague


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.

That's a fair question. When I say both need to be done for Votaan, it's because Votaan aren't exactly released yet. So it's a two-fold punch compared to just banning armies that have lots of players already have thousands of points of. If you've noticed I also encourage not buying new codices either.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 18:12:53


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 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 doesn't invalidate existing collections. Even without bandwagoners armies have a body of players who stick with them even when they aren't top dog. Giving them the middle finger when their army finally becomes good isn't something people want to do, let alone the bad optics. LoV don't have that issue.


League of Votaan Problem Model @ 2022/09/22 18:36:19


Post by: kodos


 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