Speaking as someone who hasn't seen the leaks and has only sort of followed the teasers, what do the League of Votaan rules look like, broadly speaking? From what I recall seeing, it seemed like they were at risk of being just another shade of pseudo-power armor army, but I haven't seen enough about them to pass judgement. What kind of playstyles does it seem like they'll support? What's the army's overall modus operandi? Do they feel distinct from marines/sister/tau/admech?

And most importantly, will my space elves have fun putting them back on the endangered abhumans list?

Judgement tokens mixed with Hekaton Land Fortresses and Pioneers, and then Beserks inside the Hekatons makes them stupidly strong, with the Iron master and great traits just makes it worst. Warriors, Thunderkyn, and Sagitaur are well balanced, but over all the Min max lists are Pre-nerf Nids level.

Slow moving gunline with a melee punch. Powerful rules synergies, very durable and very good at shooting (with some special rules to ignore invulnerable saves and an auto-wound mechanic).

General consensus seems to be they are over-powered and will get FAQ'd to nerf them pretty quickly.

Their biggest weakness seems to be mobility. The look seems to be a bit power-armoury with more of a retro-moonlander/generic 50s sci-fi look.

They are getting compared a lot to Tau for shooting but with less mobility, but able to do well in melee and have a pysker unit.

Cartoonishly overpowered at first glance.

Slow mostly, but with shooting that puts Tau to shame and with a lot of durability and melee punch to boot. And even their low mobility is suspect since they do get some very good looking fast units.

Right now LoV seem to be stupidly broken. One very minor downside seems to be their secondaries are not fantastic.

I think their mobility issues are generally being overstated. With the HLF being so good, they're going to have transports on the board. The bikes seem good as well. Then there's the fact that they have no Rapid Fire weapons, so they don't lose firepower when they move and much of 9th edition is about contesting the middle of the board, which is perfectly fine for an army with M5 and good durability.

Slipspace wrote:

Then there's the fact that they have no Rapid Fire weapons, so they don't lose firepower when they move

I don't think this is a thing in 9th edition (if it is, I've been playing it wrong heh).

If you want to see how the army plays, there's a bunch of batreps on youtube from last weekend. Most of them only use the contents of the starter box and not all the matches are LoV wins.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Then there's the fact that they have no Rapid Fire weapons, so they don't lose firepower when they move

I don't think this is a thing in 9th edition (if it is, I've been playing it wrong heh).

Correct - too much playing SM! It does mean you don't care about moving to get into half range though.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who hasn't seen the leaks and has only sort of followed the teasers, what do the League of Votaan rules look like, broadly speaking? From what I recall seeing, it seemed like they were at risk of being just another shade of pseudo-power armor army, but I haven't seen enough about them to pass judgement. What kind of playstyles does it seem like they'll support? What's the army's overall modus operandi? Do they feel distinct from marines/sister/tau/admech?

And most importantly, will my space elves have fun putting them back on the endangered abhumans list?

They are widely considered to be incredibly overpowered (or over-tuned, as some people prefer saying). They are exceedingly tough (it is possible to get T7 infantry models), and many of their rules effectively mean they will wipe out large enemy 'brick' units without breaking a sweat.

A good summary from a popular competitive blog.

They seem to have the best aspects of the Tau, plus decent melee, sturdy and their major limiting factor being speed.

I like how the design synergizes but I also would have liked a reasonable power level to go along with it.

very good at
-killing inv stuff
-killing small squads siting on objectives
-killing dreadnought stuff
-killing termintors

bad at
-secondaries
-counts as acceptance by non LoV players
-relocations from objectives and in general multi objective missions.

First army where someone at the studio was smart to notice that a male and female or robot in the same power armoured heavy suit is going to be different by the shape of the head. High tech esthetic of proto earth. Geneticaly pure, hyper efficient, with non deviant breeding programs. Real friends of the machine unlike the ad mecha.
If they had access to power claymores and their ancestor could be painted as papa smurf, they would top even marines as best estheticly faction in w40k.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
They seem to have the best aspects of the Tau, plus decent melee, sturdy and their major limiting factor being speed.

I like how the design synergies but I also would have liked a reasonable power level to go along with it.

Gotta make them stupidly OP so they sell out. Then, once you have their money, you nerf it because who cares, you already have their money!

When I first heard that the LoV had been banned in several countries, for a second, I had the image of national governments around the world passing legislation on it.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
They seem to have the best aspects of the Tau, plus decent melee, sturdy and their major limiting factor being speed.

I like how the design synergies but I also would have liked a reasonable power level to go along with it.

And speed isn't much issue when you have 3 good sized transports as bare minimum.

Having played against them with my Nids? What I can tell you is they are VERY VERY good at deleting expensive single targets or small elite units.

BUT.. they suffer horribly against fast moving melee units or large blob units of cheap troops.

I have not seen my hormagaunt/termagant units be so effective against any other army.

Yes, they CAN hit lots of models with a rail gun, but they WONT want to if they have any choice in the matter as killing 8 or 9 termagants is nothing compared to 1 shotting a hive tyrant for example.

Elite armies are gonna suffer horrendously from them, but Guard, Nids, Orks and almost certainly GSC will give them trouble.

I feel this is the army that may reintroduce the "horde" lists to the game as they don't seem to deal well with them.

Oh, they are woefully vulnerable to mortal wounds.....so much so that I am now ACUTALLY seriously considering adding 2 units of 9 spore mines to my army...I mean...spore mines?!!!!!

How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

Good. That means less people will buy them and MAYBE GW will listen

Nah that won't happen, because a bunch of short attention spanners will have already bought them because they're new and shiny.

Some first attempts at builds may get a bit carried away with the big guns and forget to bring some volume, but they do have good horde clear in the book.

The terminators cost 185 for 5 and can have 45 shots into an 11+ model unit and then 16 melee attacks to mop up whats left.

The beserks do have a 5 for 110 build of their unit which does 30 melee attacks (and fights on death).

The bikers are usually 110 for 3, but have 18 shots at 24" (24 at 12") in the popular configuration.

A very basic number I use to determine vulnerableness to mortals as a TS player is just looking at raw points per wound.

Warriors 11~15.
Termies 17.5.
Beserks 11 that goes to 7.3 with their FNP.
Bikes 11.
Sagitaur 12.2.
Hekkatrukk Dwarfbuggy 15.6.

In comparison:
Intercessors 10.
Redemptor 14.6.
Big Knights roughly 18~19.
Armigers roughly 12.5.
Scarab Terminators 13.3.
Crisis Suits (CIB/FB/PL) 17.5.
Hammerhead 11.1.
Tyranid Warriors 10.
Bloodletters 13.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Some first attempts at builds may get a bit carried away with the big guns and forget to bring some volume, but they do have good horde clear in the book.

The terminators cost 185 for 5 and can have 45 shots into an 11+ model unit and then 16 melee attacks to mop up whats left.

The beserks do have a 5 for 110 build of their unit which does 30 melee attacks (and fights on death).

The bikers are usually 110 for 3, but have 18 shots at 24" (24 at 12") in the popular configuration.

A very basic number I use to determine vulnerableness to mortals as a TS player is just looking at raw points per wound.

Warriors 11~15.
Termies 17.5.
Beserks 11 that goes to 7.3 with their FNP.
Bikes 11.
Sagitaur 12.2.
Hekkatrukk Dwarfbuggy 15.6.

In comparison:
Intercessors 10.
Redemptor 14.6.
Big Knights roughly 18~19.
Armigers roughly 12.5.
Scarab Terminators 13.3.
Crisis Suits (CIB/FB/PL) 17.5.
Hammerhead 11.1.
Tyranid Warriors 10.
Bloodletters 13.

Until they use their Strat that apparently can stop a unit from being affected by Psychic Powers LOL

I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Some first attempts at builds may get a bit carried away with the big guns and forget to bring some volume, but they do have good horde clear in the book.

The terminators cost 185 for 5 and can have 45 shots into an 11+ model unit and then 16 melee attacks to mop up whats left.

The beserks do have a 5 for 110 build of their unit which does 30 melee attacks (and fights on death).

The bikers are usually 110 for 3, but have 18 shots at 24" (24 at 12") in the popular configuration.

A very basic number I use to determine vulnerableness to mortals as a TS player is just looking at raw points per wound.

Warriors 11~15.
Termies 17.5.
Beserks 11 that goes to 7.3 with their FNP.
Bikes 11.
Sagitaur 12.2.
Hekkatrukk Dwarfbuggy 15.6.

In comparison:
Intercessors 10.
Redemptor 14.6.
Big Knights roughly 18~19.
Armigers roughly 12.5.
Scarab Terminators 13.3.
Crisis Suits (CIB/FB/PL) 17.5.
Hammerhead 11.1.
Tyranid Warriors 10.
Bloodletters 13.

Until they use their Strat that apparently can stop a unit from being affected by Psychic Powers LOL

That strat doesn't stop mortal wounds Psychic Power.

 Togusa wrote:


Gotta make them stupidly OP so they sell out. Then, once you have their money, you nerf it because who cares, you already have their money!

Ain't it the truth

tneva82 wrote:

And speed isn't much issue when you have 3 good sized transports as bare minimum.

Yeah I've always had a soft spot for transports and I am a bit envious of theirs, both in looks and rules. One day my Landraiders and Bonebreakas will shine again, one day.

The Newman wrote:
I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

Doesn't that just result in the problem being pushed down to between the 1st and 2nd dataslate instead?

GW claims to look at tournaments to inform their balance dataslates, so if no events have the new books, then GW don't have data, and are likely to leave the book as is.

The Newman wrote:
I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

It has been discussed before or comping them in terms of points.

Each edition you get this cycle from the shills/fanbois/apologists:
Year 1 - Wait and see, it is early in the edition, this codex is OP because it is one of the first ones, banning it now would be silly.
Year 2 - Hammer in a meta full of nails, this codex is OP but wait and see a bit longer as some paid shills said the next books are even better, banning it now would be silly.
Year 3 - Woah you want to ban something now, that would be silly because we never banned anything in this edition. P.S. It is probably written with next edition in mind, wait and see!

So, in summary, keep waiting and seeing to find out if 10th edition written by the same people as 9th edition magically is better written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:
GW claims to look at tournaments to inform their balance dataslates, so if no events have the new books, then GW don't have data, and are likely to leave the book as is.

GW claims a lot of things, many like this aren't that believable. The solution if the community was collectively banning as a whole and then GW don't FAQ/slate properly the first time is that the bans continue until they do. Eventually they would get the message.

EightFoldPath wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
GW claims to look at tournaments to inform their balance dataslates, so if no events have the new books, then GW don't have data, and are likely to leave the book as is.

GW claims a lot of things, many like this aren't that believable. The solution if the community was collectively banning as a whole and then GW don't FAQ/slate properly the first time is that the bans continue until they do. Eventually they would get the message.

Also, even if GW actually are looking at tournament data, the important thing is how they interpret and act on that data, not just the fact they're collecting it. Collecting it is the easy part.

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

I'll say, that's a pretty good approach anytime there is an early promotional limited release. Not really fair to use a codex at an event, when it's not available for folks to buy, and the factions models are not available yet for purchase. Regardless of power level.

JakeSiren wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

Doesn't that just result in the problem being pushed down to between the 1st and 2nd dataslate instead?

GW claims to look at tournaments to inform their balance dataslates, so if no events have the new books, then GW don't have data, and are likely to leave the book as is.

They have data from sales to direct. Once sold enough time to change what's op

Also thev do know what the problem is. They created lt. Knowingly.

tneva82 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

Doesn't that just result in the problem being pushed down to between the 1st and 2nd dataslate instead?

GW claims to look at tournaments to inform their balance dataslates, so if no events have the new books, then GW don't have data, and are likely to leave the book as is.

They have data from sales to direct. Once sold enough time to change what's op

Also thev do know what the problem is. They created lt. Knowingly.

GW would never knowingly break the game, they've changed! They have social media now!

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

Good. That means less people will buy them and MAYBE GW will listen

Nah that won't happen, because a bunch of short attention spanners will have already bought them because they're new and shiny.

Why insult people wanting to get a new army?! Its what keeps the game alive.

I plan on getting them, and I haven't been to a tournament since early 7th...I like the models. Especially the hearthkyn and sagitaurs.

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

Good. That means less people will buy them and MAYBE GW will listen

Nah that won't happen, because a bunch of short attention spanners will have already bought them because they're new and shiny.

Why insult people wanting to get a new army?! Its what keeps the game alive.

I plan on getting them, and I haven't been to a tournament since early 7th...I like the models. Especially the hearthkyn and sagitaurs.

Have fun with your CONSOOM. Kirby would be proud of you.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

Good. That means less people will buy them and MAYBE GW will listen

Nah that won't happen, because a bunch of short attention spanners will have already bought them because they're new and shiny.

Why insult people wanting to get a new army?! Its what keeps the game alive.

I plan on getting them, and I haven't been to a tournament since early 7th...I like the models. Especially the hearthkyn and sagitaurs.

Have fun with your CONSOOM. Kirby would be proud of you.

Are you just trolling? What is the point of you even posting?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

Good. That means less people will buy them and MAYBE GW will listen

Nah that won't happen, because a bunch of short attention spanners will have already bought them because they're new and shiny.

Why insult people wanting to get a new army?! Its what keeps the game alive.

I plan on getting them, and I haven't been to a tournament since early 7th...I like the models. Especially the hearthkyn and sagitaurs.

Have fun with your CONSOOM. Kirby would be proud of you.

This forum needs a "based" button in addition to "Exalted."

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
How are the Squats?

Already banned at several German tournaments.

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz3ZC22CDLk&t=570s

Good. That means less people will buy them and MAYBE GW will listen

Nah that won't happen, because a bunch of short attention spanners will have already bought them because they're new and shiny.

Why insult people wanting to get a new army?! Its what keeps the game alive.

I plan on getting them, and I haven't been to a tournament since early 7th...I like the models. Especially the hearthkyn and sagitaurs.

Have fun with your CONSOOM. Kirby would be proud of you.

Are you just trolling? What is the point of you even posting?

Kirby said the hobby was buying models. You fit right into his target demographic that he didn't even need market research on.

Squats have great synergy, but to me it seems like they will start to fold fast if you can eliminate key units early. Snipering a Kahl off the board makes those two 20 man units he was sandwiched between much less scary.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Kirby said the hobby was buying models. You fit right into his target demographic that he didn't even need market research on.

Do you not buy models then? Do you just look at their pictures online or something?

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Kirby said the hobby was buying models. You fit right into his target demographic that he didn't even need market research on.

Do you not buy models then? Do you just look at their pictures online or something?

Don't bother. They're not interested in being reasoned with, they're just one of the many people on here with a massive chip on their shoulder who are only interested in smugly stating how much better they are than people who simply get on and enjoy the hobby in whatever way they please. It's simply not worth engaging with them.

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Kirby said the hobby was buying models. You fit right into his target demographic that he didn't even need market research on.

Do you not buy models then? Do you just look at their pictures online or something?

The last models I bought were the plastic Valkyres back, like, 10 years ago I guess? Haven't bought anything since then, so I guess it is very much possible to stay in the hobby without spending a single coin on wares. After the starting investment of getting yourself an army you can (technically) play ad-infinitum. You can even get into the hobby without showing a single bit of your money to GW if you buy an army from a sale or if your gaming club has a store army you can use.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Kirby said the hobby was buying models. You fit right into his target demographic that he didn't even need market research on.

Do you not buy models then? Do you just look at their pictures online or something?

The last models I bought were the plastic Valkyres back, like, 10 years ago I guess? Haven't bought anything since then, so I guess it is very much possible to stay in the hobby without spending a single coin on wares. After the starting investment of getting yourself an army you can (technically) play ad-infinitum. You can even get into the hobby without showing a single bit of your money to GW if you buy an army from a sale or if your gaming club has a store army you can use.

So? You still bought models for your chosen army. Hopefully models you also like....

Heafstaag wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Kirby said the hobby was buying models. You fit right into his target demographic that he didn't even need market research on.

Do you not buy models then? Do you just look at their pictures online or something?

I'd only buy models I would use, and as of principle I stopped giving GW money until they sort out their gak with their rules. You however see SHINY and want to buy. So yes, you are exactly Kirby's demographic of the hobby = buying GW models.

Oh and my Marines are mostly third party anyway. My Custodes/Sigmarine project is on hold indefinitely.

ccs wrote:
Hopefully models you also like....

Not really. Models I had to buy to play the game. If I had had alternatives (borrowed or store army) then I wouldn't have bought crap. Hence me not buying anything after my army was done.

 AtoMaki wrote:

ccs wrote:
Hopefully models you also like....

Not really. Models I had to buy to play the game. If I had had alternatives (borrowed or store army) then I wouldn't have bought crap. Hence me not buying anything after my army was done.

Why even participate in a hobby that you hate the product of so much? im not a star wars fan so it would be a weird flex for me to be on a star wars forum bragging about how i managed to only purchase star wars models 10 years ago and wishing i could have avoided buying even those

Asmodios wrote:
Why even participate in a hobby that you hate the product of so much?

I like the game and the setting. I can't give a flying gak about the "products" because I don't think they are as important as the game itself. Plastic is ultimately replaceable, having a laugh with your friends while you are blasting them off the table Turn 2 is not.

 AtoMaki wrote:

ccs wrote:
Hopefully models you also like....

Not really. Models I had to buy to play the game. If I had had alternatives (borrowed or store army) then I wouldn't have bought crap. Hence me not buying anything after my army was done.

Life's too short to waste time & $ playing with models you don't like.
(Unless you're literally being paid to do so.)

If you can't build a functioning army using models you like (GW stuff - old or new, someone elses, kitbashed/converted, or now 3d printed)? Then move on to your next choice.
Only fools buy crap they don't like.

ccs wrote:
Life's too short to waste time & $ playing with models you don't like.

Why? It is just some plastic. I don't have to like them to play with them.

ccs wrote:
If you can't build a functioning army using models you like (GW stuff - old or new, someone elses, kitbashed/converted, or now 3d printed)? Then move on to your next choice.

Why should I? I don't care about the models, I like the game, and that's enough. Like, are you really implying that I'm some kind of "lesser" player because I can't give a crap about the modeling aspect? What kind of gakky holier-than-thou attitude is that? Nazrak's assessment above really went over your head, didn't it?

Rule 3, stick to it please - ingtær.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Why even participate in a hobby that you hate the product of so much?

I like the game and the setting. I can't give a flying gak about the "products" because I don't think they are as important as the game itself. Plastic is ultimately replaceable, having a laugh with your friends while you are blasting them off the table Turn 2 is not.

Once again to my example it would be weird if i loved the star wars lore and setting, then hated the models that were a direct representation of the lore and setting. i mean whatever floats your boat but honestly comes off more like the edgy kid that thinks its cool to hate on something he's clearly into. But at least your in the correct time now as you can 3D print all types of counts as models that have different themes to the GW models but can be used for gameplay

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And anyone should listen to you when it comes to their own disposable income because?

20 words of less, please.

There's the argument that thoughtless consumption of product worsens said product for thoughtful consumers.

That's 14 words? Not saying I agree with them, but I do see where people like EviscerationPlague are coming from (although there is a certain hostility of tone from some members which make it seem like an unreasonable position).

edit: It's the same basic concept that boycotts are founded on, and I think most people generally agree with the concept of boycotts. "Your company is doing A Bad Thing that I don't approve of, so I'm not going to purchase from it, and I'm going to ask others to not purchase from it as well, so that when you're making less profits you might consider not doing The Bad Thing any more."

In this case the bad thing is churning out low effort, poorly balanced gaming material. Those who purchase the box set are telling GW to continue forward with that, since it's making them money.

Again, not throwing my own hat in here (I'm too cowardly to do that on the internet), just stating the thought process in a hopefully less hostile way.

How is choosing to buy a new army in a hobby thoughtless?

Geeze, some of you folks seem outta your minds about people *gasp* enjoying the hobby.

From a certain perspective, it's thoughtless because it's not considering the deeper implications.

One could make the argument that people *gasp* enjoying the hobby is causing others to *gasp* not enjoy the hobby. Who can say who is right, in that situation? Each side has equal right to enjoy the hobby, don't they?

The compromise would be that the people who enjoy buying miniatures they like with no deeper thought buy the miniatures that they like, and the people who don't want GW to shovel out crap army books do not play against those armies and do not allow those armies to play at public events.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And anyone should listen to you when it comes to their own disposable income because?

20 words of less, please.

There's the argument that thoughtless consumption of product worsens said product for thoughtful consumers.

That's 14 words? Not saying I agree with them, but I do see where people like EviscerationPlague are coming from (although there is a certain hostility of tone from some members which make it seem like an unreasonable position).

edit: It's the same basic concept that boycotts are founded on, and I think most people generally agree with the concept of boycotts. "Your company is doing A Bad Thing that I don't approve of, so I'm not going to purchase from it, and I'm going to ask others to not purchase from it as well, so that when you're making less profits you might consider not doing The Bad Thing any more."

In this case the bad thing is churning out low effort, poorly balanced gaming material. Those who purchase the box set are telling GW to continue forward with that, since it's making them money.

Again, not throwing my own hat in here (I'm too cowardly to do that on the internet), just stating the thought process in a hopefully less hostile way.

When I decide I'm done with a company/IP I'm just done with it. For instance I was a huge GOT fan and read all the books at release... then the ruined ASOFAI after the initial great season and I realized GRRM was never going to finish the last book so I decided I was done. I don't play their bored game, I don't watch the new shows, I don't buy their products and I don't go to their forums anymore. Its weird to me you have people "boycotting GW" for decades and yet still actively following the hobby and all concerned about people not boycotting buying the products. Maybe its time for these people to more on completely after a decade of being salty

So how 'bout them squats

 Rihgu wrote:
From a certain perspective, it's thoughtless because it's not considering the deeper implications.

One could make the argument that people *gasp* enjoying the hobby is causing others to *gasp* not enjoy the hobby. Who can say who is right, in that situation? Each side has equal right to enjoy the hobby, don't they?

The compromise would be that the people who enjoy buying miniatures they like with no deeper thought buy the miniatures that they like, and the people who don't want GW to shovel out crap army books do not play against those armies and do not allow those armies to play at public events.

Wow, maybe people should just realize that warhammer is imbalanced and armies have cycles of being good and bad. Remember grey knights in 5th? And guard leafblower lists?

Heafstaag wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
From a certain perspective, it's thoughtless because it's not considering the deeper implications.

One could make the argument that people *gasp* enjoying the hobby is causing others to *gasp* not enjoy the hobby. Who can say who is right, in that situation? Each side has equal right to enjoy the hobby, don't they?

The compromise would be that the people who enjoy buying miniatures they like with no deeper thought buy the miniatures that they like, and the people who don't want GW to shovel out crap army books do not play against those armies and do not allow those armies to play at public events.

Wow, maybe people should just realize that warhammer is imbalanced and armies have cycles of being good and bad. Remember grey knights in 5th? And guard leafblower lists?

It's almost like we should ask more from the largest tabletop minis company in the world instead of just accepting the gak they shovel at us.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And anyone should listen to you when it comes to their own disposable income because?

20 words of less, please.

There's the argument that thoughtless consumption of product worsens said product for thoughtful consumers.

That's 14 words? Not saying I agree with them, but I do see where people like EviscerationPlague are coming from (although there is a certain hostility of tone from some members which make it seem like an unreasonable position).

edit: It's the same basic concept that boycotts are founded on, and I think most people generally agree with the concept of boycotts. "Your company is doing A Bad Thing that I don't approve of, so I'm not going to purchase from it, and I'm going to ask others to not purchase from it as well, so that when you're making less profits you might consider not doing The Bad Thing any more."

In this case the bad thing is churning out low effort, poorly balanced gaming material. Those who purchase the box set are telling GW to continue forward with that, since it's making them money.

Again, not throwing my own hat in here (I'm too cowardly to do that on the internet), just stating the thought process in a hopefully less hostile way.

The problem here is you're making a personal value judgement about a product/company and assuming everyone agrees with you, which is a pretty arrogant approach (I know you're talking in hypotheticals, so I'm not necessarily saying you are arrogant yourself). You're assuming they haven't made these determinations themselves and simply come to a different conclusion. It also assumes everyone's motivations are the same. The rules for LoV are terrible but plenty of people don't really care about that and might be excited about the modelling or painting possibilities of the new models.

The rules for LoV are terrible but plenty of people don't really care about that and might be excited about the modelling or painting possibilities of the new models.

Pretty much this.
Players must decide if they build up a (competitive) LoV army despite the fact that their armies may be banned from tourneys.
Painters and models pretty much don't care.

Just wait for the nerf bat to come down and the whales sell all their unopened, unpainted stuff.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Just wait for the nerf bat to come down and the whales sell all their unopened, unpainted stuff.

Good. Might find a cheap codex on eBay...

Time to knock off the off topic chatter and get back to the topic.

I went in blind and bought 2 army sets without knowing anything about their rules, only how the models look.

Don't care if they are overpowered or useless; I decided the instant they where announced that I would be getting me some space dwarfs.

After having read their codex abit, they do seem strong, probably too strong, but I'm sure that it'll get sorted soon enough.
(Them being banned in tournaments doesn't affect me since I never intend to attend a tournament ever again.)

If you want to hate on me for buying the "new shiny OP stuff", bring the hate. I literally couldn't care less.

 Nazrak wrote:

Don't bother. They're not interested in being reasoned with, they're just one of the many people on here with a massive chip on their shoulder who are only interested in smugly stating how much better they are than people who simply get on and enjoy the hobby in whatever way they please. It's simply not worth engaging with them.

What's the hobby to you? Games Workshop or miniature gaming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
I went in blind and bought 2 army sets without knowing anything about their rules, only how the models look.

Don't care if they are overpowered or useless; I decided the instant they where announced that I would be getting me some space dwarfs.

After having read their codex abit, they do seem strong, probably too strong, but I'm sure that it'll get sorted soon enough.
(Them being banned in tournaments doesn't affect me since I never intend to attend a tournament ever again.)

If you want to hate on me for buying the "new shiny OP stuff", bring the hate. I literally couldn't care less.

I don't think I'd hate on someone for buying the models because they'd like them. The models are pretty cool and their depiction in the setting is pretty neat. The only issue I've seen is people saying that players are wrong for not wanting to play against a codex that's that powerful.

Hecaton 806988 11435650 wrote:

I don't think I'd hate on someone for buying the models because they'd like them. The models are pretty cool and their depiction in the setting is pretty neat. The only issue I've seen is people saying that players are wrong for not wanting to play against a codex that's that powerful.

If they didn't do the same, aka ask for bans, for other factions, including the one they may have possibly played themselfs is a huge double standard. When someone who plays or played a top army, and told you stuff like to learn to play and build your army properly, followed by I didn't use a 100% optimised list only a 85% one, it leaves me cold to their arguments to ban LoV. And LoV is a faction that anihilates small meq elite armies that are short/melee focused, which includes my army. There are things you do not do, because if you do it for one thing, it will be done for other things too, and the the flood gates open and there is total chaos.

Karol wrote:

Hecaton 806988 11435650 wrote:

I don't think I'd hate on someone for buying the models because they'd like them. The models are pretty cool and their depiction in the setting is pretty neat. The only issue I've seen is people saying that players are wrong for not wanting to play against a codex that's that powerful.

If they didn't do the same, aka ask for bans, for other factions, including the one they may have possibly played themselfs is a huge double standard. When someone who plays or played a top army, and told you stuff like to learn to play and build your army properly, followed by I didn't use a 100% optimised list only a 85% one, it leaves me cold to their arguments to ban LoV. And LoV is a faction that anihilates small meq elite armies that are short/melee focused, which includes my army. There are things you do not do, because if you do it for one thing, it will be done for other things too, and the the flood gates open and there is total chaos.

And as I've stated, I and several others advised against buying new codices but people won't listen. If bans are necessary now, so be it.

Karol wrote:

If they didn't do the same, aka ask for bans, for other factions, including the one they may have possibly played themselfs is a huge double standard.

Not necessarily, if Votann is legitimately the worst faction in the game for power levels.

I'll just C+P what I said about Squats from Discord for how I feel about the 'lil fethers:

Currently there's a lot of talk of banning them and the apparent celebration of "showing it to the man" to GW when the "community" bands together against power creep.

I'm not gonna lie this time it's really fethed me off and it's really, really fethed me off due to the hypocrisy of the movement.

The reason being is that to me Votann represent two larger issues that has plagued 9th edition since Ad. Mech and Drukhari. Hard-Counter subversion of the core mechanics and the proliferation of damage output armies.

If people had a serious problem with how Judgement Tokens and Rail-Cannons then they should have had a problem with perma-transhuman armies, they should have been equally calling for bans on Harlequins or Tyranids and yet nothing stopped them from appearing in tournament games. People should have been calling for bans on Ad. Mech and cult of Strife/Drukhari with their consistent damage output and yet they were allowed to participate and dominate the meta no different to how Tyranids have done.

There are ways to play against Votann and unlike some people who will happily give you that advice behind a paywall I'll give you it for free because I don't fething believe in "Premium-Price 40k coaching":

- 4+ Sv. Yes they have AoC BUT on a 1W model with a 4+ Sv those troops will still suffer because AP2 is still taken in abundance (Turning a 4+ Sv to a 5+ Sv is still rough).

- 5" is exactly that. slow. There will be a lot of faction/units that will outmanoeuvre them.

- They have next to no morale counters. This allows morale to be played as a very big factor against them if you play into that playstyle

- Void Armour doesn't ignore modifiers to wound, so +1 to wound is still viable against them.

- They have FnP mechanics BUT like with any other army they can be weathered down in MW.

- Very little to no LoS ignores. Your army may have with good stats. Use them. There's some funky things that happen with beam but you can't beam through obscuring terrain which allows units to hide which leads to my last point.

- Mid-Range army. Very few things have a long range, that means with a low Movement stat they will be marching on to meet you for a scrum in the middle. Combing the previous point to this one means that you can counter this, it's no different to other armies in that regard.

- Force them to fight last. Votann have only one unit that deals in Fight on Death being the Berserkers, but if you have any units that have fight first or forces them to fight last then against anything else you'll have a fun time.

Votann are designed to get to the middle of the board and shout "deal with me brah".

They can be dealt with. Let them come to you, offer some counter-charges. MW units like their Terminators and Berserkers. You'll be fine.

How did I come to that conclusion? Because there's so many people out there who just love the boiler-plate statements of how 40k "is the most balanced edition to date..." (completely forgetting the other half of that sentence being "... For hyper-competitive GT play" which is not the same experience as it is for the game in general) and so you Just "gotta git gud".

Well, as a Night Lords player it looks like I "got gud" because I actively looked at what they're weakest at to exploit on the table rather than get "shocked" at how powerful they are for Clout. As a Night Lord player I'd much much rather fight Votann than say, Leviathan or Custodes because at least Votann allow me to use my trait to get an engaging play experience as opposed to either which lock me out of my trait which then due to how much point investment I have to make to make the trait functional in order to compete at a bare functional level, never mind play the damn game, therefore locking me out of the playstyle of the VIII!

There's plenty of ways to play around Votann and defend yourself against Votann. GT players aren't used to it because they don't like it when something affects their army lists majorly. They're as guilty as the rest of us when it comes to change and TO's trying to ban Votann is a perfect reflection of that.

For me I just hate the hypocrisy of this alleged movement as well as the false narrative of "trickle down" Game Balance that people think 9E has and Votann are yet again a perfect reflection of that.

There are things that make Votann overbearing for many. I do recognise that JT are inherently strong, they have a good access to great strats as well as some fantastic rules in-built on units. They will need toning down in due time. However to me the communities (or to be more precise the GT scenes) response has been absolutely appalling and manipulative to spearheaded their distain of their narrow-sighted views of change. The hypocrisy is the most frustrating aspect of the whole ordeal.

We've allowed the GT scene to be our mouthpiece for far too long and 9E is the result of that. They got thier balenced edition while so many more who aren't hyper-competitive lost out and walked away to HH or waiting out for 10E.

 The Warp Forge wrote:
If people had a serious problem with how Judgement Tokens and Rail-Cannons then they should have had a problem with perma-transhuman armies, they should have been equally calling for bans on Harlequins or Tyranids and yet nothing stopped them from appearing in tournament games. People should have been calling for bans on Ad. Mech and cult of Strife/Drukhari with their consistent damage output and yet they were allowed to participate and dominate the meta no different to how Tyranids have done.

Why isn't your attitude "better late than never"? It sounds like you don't want the game to be better.

Trickle down game balance is real, at least as far as you're concerned. GT players have a better handle on Votann than you do.

Yeah pretty cringe post ngl. Should the other hot OP armies (at bare minimum Tyranids, Harlequins, Tau, Custodes, and maybe Eldar idk) have been banned? Yes absolutely. And the community should have had the balls to take it further by refusing to participate in GW-sponsored tournaments who naturally wouldn't actually ban them, but I expect that won't happen because most people have no integrity.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Yeah pretty cringe post ngl. Should the other hot OP armies (at bare minimum Tyranids, Harlequins, Tau, Custodes, and maybe Eldar idk) have been banned? Yes absolutely. And the community should have had the balls to take it further by refusing to participate in GW-sponsored tournaments who naturally wouldn't actually ban them, but I expect that won't happen because most people have no integrity.

The key difference being that Votaan are a NEW army, which presents more of an opportunity to actually make a point compared to the armies that people have had for maybe a decade or more.

They are clearly overpowered. Better late than never on the bans. I'm glad they started somewhere otherwise how would anything ever change.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Yeah pretty cringe post ngl. Should the other hot OP armies (at bare minimum Tyranids, Harlequins, Tau, Custodes, and maybe Eldar idk) have been banned? Yes absolutely. And the community should have had the balls to take it further by refusing to participate in GW-sponsored tournaments who naturally wouldn't actually ban them, but I expect that won't happen because most people have no integrity.

The key difference being that Votaan are a NEW army, which presents more of an opportunity to actually make a point compared to the armies that people have had for maybe a decade or more.

Yeah this is the main thing about why they in particular are getting a lot of push to be banned.

That and it's very much a straw that breaks the camels back moment.

Also that above post being an apologist is just embarrassing and shows a severe amount of cope and just plain misunderstanding of basic game mechanics. Squats are not Drukhari, Admech, Tyranids, Ork Buggies, GK, Tau, Custodes or Harlequins. They are WORSE than all of them and this is something that has already been tested for about a month now, as people have been proxying and 3D printing and doing high level practice games with the army. I have never seen pro players and other people deeply embedded in the comp ecosystems be so unanimous about the strength level of an army; there's always been at least some caveats or downplaying going on somewhere. Even that AoW video about the sky not falling and Squats not being unbeatable said that an army in the 45-55% win range just will never beat them, which isn't exactly encouraging.

And for future reference, anyone who tries to say that Squats have drawbacks because they're "slow" or "short range" should be ignored immediately. Absolute nonsense. They are neither of those things.

Hard to say army slow when they have ample options to transport the infantry forward...All the strongest lists have several transports because a) either they pack one of the meanest guns in the game b) they are efficient source to bring out 5 guys costing bit more than 100 that can one shot knight with under the odds rolls...

Yeah your basic votann might not walk fast. But he has a ride to take him to those objectives.

And short range isn't much of issue when terrains tend to block LOS anyway. How much over 24" clear line of sights you expect to have? Especially tournaments where breachable obscuring L walls everywhere is the norm.

Love that people keep calling them slow.

Pioneers literally outpace Harlequin bikes by 2“ (without even considering the pregame), at 2/3 the cost, nearly 5 times the damage output and randomly ObSec on top. And it‘s not even considered a top unit in that book, despite being probably the fastest non-aircraft unit currently in the game, lol

Sagitaur also win the race agains Starweavers btw.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Love that people keep calling them slow.

Pioneers literally outpace Harlequin bikes by 2“ (without even considering the pregame), at 2/3 the cost, nearly 5 times the damage output and randomly ObSec on top. And it‘s not even considered a top unit in that book, despite being probably the fastest non-aircraft unit currently in the game, lol

Sagitaur also win the race agains Starweavers btw.

And Hearthguard can just teleport anywhere every turn. Slow AF.

The only argument I can see is secondary objectives - which I've not looked into closely enough to weigh up. Some of the armies that can stack up secondaries while playing keep away may compete - but this isn't a Squat weakness, they can do this with everyone.

+1 for Squats not being slow, not being short ranged, and the idea they are "vulnerable to morale" is hard to credit, unless someone is going to spam maxed squads of the basic troops (which doesn't seem the obvious way to run them.) They have excellent shooting, assault and defensive stats.

 The Warp Forge wrote:

How did I come to that conclusion? Because there's so many people out there who just love the boiler-plate statements of how 40k "is the most balanced edition to date..." (completely forgetting the other half of that sentence being "... For hyper-competitive GT play" which is not the same experience as it is for the game in general) and so you Just "gotta git gud"

Absolutely. I really do hate when people say that 40k is the most balanced it's ever been. It completely ignores the preferences of players and assumes you'll take a meta list using a meta subfaction while playing GT mission packs. It's also (standard) hyperbole. I seriously doubt it's actually true when you look at the full history of 40k. No clue when that "most balanced" point was, but it's probably not right now. It gives this false narrative that everything is okay now, the game is fixed when in reality the internal balance of most codices is horrid.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:

How did I come to that conclusion? Because there's so many people out there who just love the boiler-plate statements of how 40k "is the most balanced edition to date..." (completely forgetting the other half of that sentence being "... For hyper-competitive GT play" which is not the same experience as it is for the game in general) and so you Just "gotta git gud"

Absolutely. I really do hate when people say that 40k is the most balanced it's ever been. It completely ignores the preferences of players and assumes you'll take a meta list using a meta subfaction while playing GT mission packs. It's also (standard) hyperbole. I seriously doubt it's actually true when you look at the full history of 40k. No clue when that "most balanced" point was, but it's probably not right now. It gives this false narrative that everything is okay now, the game is fixed when in reality the internal balance of most codices is horrid.

It's not uncommon to hate facts that don't match your opinion.

The pre-LoV nephilim mission pack was the version of 40k which has the best external balance. Every 9th edition army had a chance of doing well in competitive gaming and army lists were more diverse than ever before.
Literally every other iteration, even golden ages like pre 8.5, index or 5th edition times did not have as much variety in armies or units.
This is not a matter of opinion, but facts supported by lots and lots of data.

Even if you look at internal balance, most codices have vastly less trash-tier and trap units than they did in any other edition before, and I'm not talking about "everything not OP is trash" hyperbole.
Most codices have second tier archetypes and units which, when used in a coherent army, will still give you a real fighting chance, while straying from the cookie-cutter in older editions usually meant giving up on winning.

However, just because the game is balanced, it does not mean automatically make it fun. Balance is but one pillar of a good game, and while GW somehow managed to do pretty well in that aspect, they failed in others.
For example, I personally hate how orks play in Nephilim - while they have multiple strong builds, none of them feel orky, and the half-assed codex and the removal of most fun mechanics makes playing to win feel like a chore.

And of course, balancing by secondaries does jack for you if you aren't actually playing nephilim - you can't outscore nids with easy secondaries when you are playing crusade or tempest of war, game modes which are both just as popular as nephilim is.

It's worth noting that "most balanced" isn't really a great achievement for 40k. Considering how terrible GW's track record has been in that regard, it was kind of a low hanging fruit. They have now reached the baseline of how balanced any game should be, and there is still plenty of room for improvement.

TL;DR: The game can be both the most balanced and still suck.

 Jidmah wrote:


It's not uncommon to hate facts that don't match your opinion.

The pre-LoV nephilim mission pack was the version of 40k which has the best external balance. Every 9th edition army had a chance of doing well in competitive gaming and army lists were more diverse than ever before.
Literally every other iteration, even golden ages like pre 8.5, index or 5th edition times did not have as much variety in armies or units.
This is not a matter of opinion, but facts supported by lots and lots of data.
.

Not even remotely. Mat Ward become an internet-hate meme and was literally cyber-bullied out of his job for writing a Grey Knights Codex with a 55% win rate, which at the time was the worst thing GW ever did.

These days, 55% is considered almost perfectly balanced by stat-podcasts and internet-pundits.

7th Edition at it's worst with Ynnari Wraithknights hit a low 60-ish win rate, which was still not nearly as bad as, say, current Tyranids are even after like ... 4 nerfs?

I don't think there was a point in time in 9th where there wasn't at least one or two armies more broken then anything ever in 7th Edition, which is often the byword for a busted 40K-Edition.

From what I've heard, the Grey Knights got the 55% winrate if you don't remove mirror matches, but I've never heard what it was without them. If someone more informed is able to tell us, I'd appreciate it.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Not even remotely. Mat Ward become an internet-hate meme and was literally cyber-bullied out of his job for writing a Grey Knights Codex with a 55% win rate, which at the time was the worst thing GW ever did.

These days, 55% is considered almost perfectly balanced by stat-podcasts and internet-pundits.

7th Edition at it's worst with Ynnari Wraithknights hit a low 60-ish win rate, which was still not nearly as bad as, say, current Tyranids are even after like ... 4 nerfs?

I don't think there was a point in time in 9th where there wasn't at least one or two armies more broken then anything ever in 7th Edition, which is often the byword for a busted 40K-Edition.

Mind providing sources for those 55%? I'm not aware of any organized data collection going on at that time.

The other thing is that good balance isn't just about how powerful the best armies are - it's also about how many armies are too weak to compete.
Both during 5th and 7th there was an extremely small number of codices which were able to compete for tournament wins and and everyone else just didn't show up in any tournament rankings unless they were piloted by extremely exceptional players.

Especially 7th was the worst offender of horrible external balance - there were four tiers of armies, and an army in a lower tier had absolutely no chance of beating any army in a higher tier. A match between eldar and orks was decided before a single dice was rolled, irrespective of player skill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
From what I've heard, the Grey Knights got the 55% winrate if you don't remove mirror matches, but I've never heard what it was without them. If someone more informed is able to tell us, I'd appreciate it.

IMO the worst part about Ward's GK codex wasn't the power level itself, but the built-in I-win buttons against many armies like daemons, nids and orks as well as having no weaknesses whatsoever.

 Jidmah wrote:

The other thing is that good balance isn't just about how powerful the best armies are - it's also about how many armies are too weak to compete.

I'd go further and say it's about how those armies feel and are built. It's all very well having the majority of armies in the 45-55% win rate bracket and declaring the game balanced, but if every faction within that bracket only has 1 or 2 narrow builds to achieve that win rate I'd argue the game isn't well balanced. Even more so if some of those builds are antithetical to the background of the army or player fun. I think this goes back to your point about a balanced game not necessarily being a fun game. For example, if Necrons are doing really well, but every Necron list must contain TSK to compete, that's pretty crappy for anyone who doesn't want to use him every game. Or if BA only work when spamming 30 SG, that leaves most BA players struggling to compete in a supposedly balanced meta.

I think the real reason for past hatreds was GW's refusal to fix stuff. So GK were overpowered for at least the remaining year+ of 5th (and this was "overpowered compared to Ward's other books, which were also overpowered compared to the rest of the game".)

In much the same way Eldar (and Tau) were busted in 6th - and got even more busted in 7th, for a run of 4 years. Cue plenty of hatred.

90 point Voidweavers was insane - but it lasted... 5 weeks? The closest any faction probably gets too in recent memory was DE - and even then, you are looking at about 9 months. Comparable with 8th edition's Castellan Meta. (Which did feel kind of bad/long, because I seemed to be getting games in most weekends back then, which hasn't been the case consistently through 9th.)

===
FWIW - it no doubt is a bit lame that most factions are pushed into competitive builds - but the fact they have one such build at all is infinitely better surely than having zero. Which has more typically been the case throughout editions.

Does Demons have a decent chance against LoV armies?

Their Demon Saves are unmodifiable.

Can LoV spam out mortal wounds?

 Insularum wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Love that people keep calling them slow.

Pioneers literally outpace Harlequin bikes by 2“ (without even considering the pregame), at 2/3 the cost, nearly 5 times the damage output and randomly ObSec on top. And it‘s not even considered a top unit in that book, despite being probably the fastest non-aircraft unit currently in the game, lol

Sagitaur also win the race agains Starweavers btw.

And Hearthguard can just teleport anywhere every turn. Slow AF.

This reminds me of the people that say Necrons are a slow army with the 3rd edition codex, mostly because they built their army to be slow and not take advantage of built-in speed.

Slipspace wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The other thing is that good balance isn't just about how powerful the best armies are - it's also about how many armies are too weak to compete.

I'd go further and say it's about how those armies feel and are built. It's all very well having the majority of armies in the 45-55% win rate bracket and declaring the game balanced, but if every faction within that bracket only has 1 or 2 narrow builds to achieve that win rate I'd argue the game isn't well balanced. Even more so if some of those builds are antithetical to the background of the army or player fun. I think this goes back to your point about a balanced game not necessarily being a fun game. For example, if Necrons are doing really well, but every Necron list must contain TSK to compete, that's pretty crappy for anyone who doesn't want to use him every game. Or if BA only work when spamming 30 SG, that leaves most BA players struggling to compete in a supposedly balanced meta.

Well, no. What you are talking about is totally correct and I absolutely agree, but that's not related to external balance at all.

 Jidmah wrote:

Mind providing sources for those 55%? I'm not aware of any organized data collection going on at that time.

Woah woah woah...wait a second. You literally just told me that there was "lots and lots of data" and now you're saying there's no organized data collection?

 Jidmah wrote:

Every 9th edition army had a chance of doing well in competitive gaming and army lists were more diverse than ever before.
Literally every other iteration, even golden ages like pre 8.5, index or 5th edition times did not have as much variety in armies or units.
This is not a matter of opinion, but facts supported by lots and lots of data.

Would you like to revise your earlier statement to be based on your experience (which is probably a lot more than mine, to be fair)?

The objection I raised is based on how absolute the statement "most balanced 40k has ever been" is when we're talking about a game that has been around for 30+ years (I also take issue with "balanced" apparently being determined solely by the tournament scene rather than a combination of tournament results and more casual play, but...data limitations, yaknow).

I mean we really can't accurately gauge data from older editions past a certain point because the scene was far smaller and the methods for collecting, recording and analysing that data were just... not there for the most part.

But the question still remains: where was the GK 55% winrate recorded down? For how long did this go on for? Were there even methods to identify if this was at top tables only or all throughout an event?

At the end of the day though people's idea of what is and is not balanced doesn't just have to be based on winrates alone. Necrons are only at a 53% winrate across Nephilim currently, and yet a lot of people really dislike playing against them.

 whembly wrote:
Does Demons have a decent chance against LoV armies?

Their Demon Saves are unmodifiable.

Can LoV spam out mortal wounds?

Probably not. They can't break through their saves but Daemons have to put their eggs in one basket in the form of monster mash and I recall reading the LoV can still fairly easily force you to pick up a GUO a turn or more. We'll see though.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Mind providing sources for those 55%? I'm not aware of any organized data collection going on at that time.

Woah woah woah...wait a second. You literally just told me that there was "lots and lots of data" and now you're saying there's no organized data collection?

No organized data collection is not the same as no data.

Feel free to dig through dakka's archives (you can find tournament reports all the way back to 4th) or those of blogs like 3plusplus who were focused on competitive gaming at that time for actual data on which armies won tournaments and which never did.

No one calculated win percentages in those times or even tracked every single game of an event, so unless there is actual data to back up that 55% claim, I'm fairly sure it's pulled out of thin air.

 Jidmah wrote:

Every 9th edition army had a chance of doing well in competitive gaming and army lists were more diverse than ever before.
Literally every other iteration, even golden ages like pre 8.5, index or 5th edition times did not have as much variety in armies or units.
This is not a matter of opinion, but facts supported by lots and lots of data.

Would you like to revise your earlier statement to be based on your experience (which is probably a lot more than mine, to be fair)?

The objection I raised is based on how absolute the statement "most balanced 40k has ever been" is when we're talking about a game that has been around for 30+ years (I also take issue with "balanced" apparently being determined solely by the tournament scene rather than a combination of tournament results and more casual play, but...data limitations, yaknow).

Absolutely not. Not considering rogue trader (as I really have no idea how that played, it's more of an RPG than a strategy game), 40k has an atrocious track record of terrible balance. Literally every single edition has had massive problems in regards to broken rules and had power level of both codices and units all over the place. These things are well documented in dozens of articles across the web and there still is plenty of data available to back that up. Even today, in the "most balanced edition ever", GW merely reached a level of balance which has been an industry standard for over two decades now.

Name a single edition you think was more balanced than Nephilim was, and I'll prove you wrong.

I don't see how you can argue with internal balance being just about the best its been in particular. Units which have been terrible for literal decades edition after edition are finally playable and in some cases even strong.

 Jidmah wrote:
No organized data collection is not the same as no data.

Nor is it the same as "lots and lots of data"

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I don't see how you can argue with internal balance being just about the best its been in particular. Units which have been terrible for literal decades edition after edition are finally playable and in some cases even strong.

And other units/options which previously have been playable/strong are now terrible...

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No organized data collection is not the same as no data.

Nor is it the same as "lots and lots of data"

Any yet, we still have lots and lots of data, in the places I just explained to you.

Do you actually have anything to add to this discussion? Because so far, all you have done is argue from incredulity.

There are some serious incomplete rules and inaccuracies for LoV rules in these posts.

LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Their guns can move and fire at full effect, but there is no advance and fire base options for their weapons or units.

Yes the pioneers are fast, they will go 18" if they advance- but wont shoot or charge.

The hearthguard can spend CP to teleport, once per game per units. So not all over the place all the time.

They have some units that can move with drawbacks or a cost, but most of their army will be slow.

LoV have a range limitation, coupled with being slow, this means most of their army will not be shooting turn 1-2 unless you move up to the midboard. It's a 5 turn game, if they are spreading out to take objectives not all their units can support each other like many other "Fast" factions which can rapidly redeploy multiple units across a table and still shoot and or charge.

Judgements aren't broken, although the combination of judgement 3(pretty easy for GTL) autohitting being a wound of 6 and magna rail might be.

Alternatively or additionally change magna rail weapons so the wounds still require armor saves. If a model dies and there are left over wounds the next model gets a save, damage only continues if it fails the save. Or cap how many additional models can die, it is an interesting rule but it basically is better than blast weapons against hordes, and still a great anti armor weapon. Or even just one of those old mechanics like the damage is applied to another model in the unit on a 2+, then 3+, then 4+, then 5+, then 6+ for all remaining damage.

There are plenty of youtube battle reports where you can watch the outcome of actual votann on a table with terrain, and being distances apart from things. They are doing well, but they aren't 8th edition iron hands good. They lose games to multiple factions - not just to mirror matches, and have few crazy blow outs.

Thank you for clearing that up

blaktoof wrote:
There are some serious incomplete rules and inaccuracies for LoV rules in these posts.

LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Their guns can move and fire at full effect, but there is no advance and fire base options for their weapons or units.

Yes the pioneers are fast, they will go 18" if they advance- but wont shoot or charge.

The hearthguard can spend CP to teleport, once per game per units. So not all over the place all the time.

They have some units that can move with drawbacks or a cost, but most of their army will be slow.

LoV have a range limitation, coupled with being slow, this means most of their army will not be shooting turn 1-2 unless you move up to the midboard. It's a 5 turn game, if they are spreading out to take objectives not all their units can support each other like many other "Fast" factions which can rapidly redeploy multiple units across a table and still shoot and or charge.

Judgements aren't broken, although the combination of judgement 3(pretty easy for GTL) autohitting being a wound of 6 and magna rail might be.

Alternatively or additionally change magna rail weapons so the wounds still require armor saves. If a model dies and there are left over wounds the next model gets a save, damage only continues if it fails the save. Or cap how many additional models can die, it is an interesting rule but it basically is better than blast weapons against hordes, and still a great anti armor weapon. Or even just one of those old mechanics like the damage is applied to another model in the unit on a 2+, then 3+, then 4+, then 5+, then 6+ for all remaining damage.

There are plenty of youtube battle reports where you can watch the outcome of actual votann on a table with terrain, and being distances apart from things. They are doing well, but they aren't 8th edition iron hands good. They lose games to multiple factions - not just to mirror matches, and have few crazy blow outs.

I agree with a lot of this, and I don't think Votann will dominate the top tables in the way that Nids for example did on release. But the notion that Judgement tokens are not broken is one I cannot agree with.

Autowound is a very powerful mechanic. Autowounds on anything other then 6's gets ridiculous and the fact that they accumulate over the course of the game and don't go away is just preposterous.

 Jidmah wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No organized data collection is not the same as no data.

Nor is it the same as "lots and lots of data"

Any yet, we still have lots and lots of data, in the places I just explained to you.

Do you actually have anything to add to this discussion? Because so far, all you have done is argue from incredulity.

Very well. I eagerly await you post of collated data

Not worried about them. If encountered my orks will just drop a space hulk on their heads. (Or maybe a few roks).

So you can gak all over it with a one-liner? I've learned my lesson and know better than investing this kind of work into a dakka post.

The data has been presented to you, it is freely available and has been analyzed by credible sources. You can either go read it yourself to satisfy your doubts or be ignorant of it, your choice.

Logical arguments are wasted on ignorant people, so either try educating yourself or alternatively have a good day feeling superior to me.

blaktoof wrote:
LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Why people keep insisting they are slow when they have a) transports which are pretty darn fast b) have also bike unit that's fast.

You aren't slow when you can reach objectives fast. If they didn't have transports and bikes sure. But speed of infantry doesn't matter because you are where you need to be in turn 2. Space marines arent' there any faster in practice.

You are fixating on one part of rules and forget rest. It's like claiming tyranids suck at destroying tanks looking at hormagaunt datasheet...

 Jidmah wrote:
So you can gak all over it with a one-liner? I've learned my lesson and know better than investing this kind of work into a dakka post.

The data has been presented to you, it is freely available and has been analyzed by credible sources. You can either go read it yourself to satisfy your doubts or be ignorant of it, your choice.

Logical arguments are wasted on ignorant people, so either try educating yourself or alternatively have a good day feeling superior to me.

You're all over the place. Now there's both no organized data and analyzed data. But we should stop either way as we're already off topic and, as you said, it's not worth the effort for a dakka post because someone will just gak on your post with a one liner (or a wikipedia link) so they can feel superior

tneva82 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Why people keep insisting they are slow when they have a) transports which are pretty darn fast b) have also bike unit that's fast.

You aren't slow when you can reach objectives fast. If they didn't have transports and bikes sure. But speed of infantry doesn't matter because you are where you need to be in turn 2. Space marines arent' there any faster in practice.

You are fixating on one part of rules and forget rest. It's like claiming tyranids suck at destroying tanks looking at hormagaunt datasheet...

Not all units are in transports all the time nor will every LoV-list spamm bikes.

LoV are slow outside of bikes and transports, and their average weapon-range is very low to boot.

These are obvious drawbacks that LoV-bashers happily ignore because "Grrr, LoV broken!"...

If LoV aren't considered slow due to bikes and transports, then you might as well claim that Eldar aren't considered fragile because they have Wraithguard and Wraithlords.

 MinscS2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Why people keep insisting they are slow when they have a) transports which are pretty darn fast b) have also bike unit that's fast.

You aren't slow when you can reach objectives fast. If they didn't have transports and bikes sure. But speed of infantry doesn't matter because you are where you need to be in turn 2. Space marines arent' there any faster in practice.

You are fixating on one part of rules and forget rest. It's like claiming tyranids suck at destroying tanks looking at hormagaunt datasheet...

Not all units are in transports all the time nor will every LoV-list spamm bikes.

LoV are slow outside of bikes and transports, and their average weapon-range is very low to boot.

These are obvious drawbacks that LoV-bashers happily ignore because "Grrr, LoV broken!"...

And honestly after 9 games, my Bikes has been some of the worst preforming units, loads of str 5 and str6 shots with low AP, sure rr1s to hit, but general do 6-7D and then die, or I keep them far enough away to not be a threat/charged and only deal 2-3D. IDK who keeps saying they are insanely powerful bc I dont see it. Now for utility purpose? yeah they are very good, Pre-game ObSec move unit that can help prevent DS and for a CP just out a JT on any unit, they are great, as a 6-9 man unit for damage? they are meh. So I just take 2-3 3mans now for utility. I found their speed and cheapness is needed in the army and most the time they just put a JT onto something and hold objectives/do secondaries.

How is their average weapon range - of 18"-24" by my count - "very low"?

The point about being dependent on transports for speed is reasonable - and so big nerfs to say the Hekaton/Sagitaur would inevitably spill over to the power of Beserks. But at least right now this isn't an issue, because the transports are great.

Clearly you could build a footslogging Squat force - and/or put half your points into basic Hearthkin - that would be slow and probably not all that good at scoring objectives. But why would you?

Tyel wrote:
How is their average weapon range - of 18"-24" by my count - "very low"?

The point about being dependent on transports for speed is reasonable - and so big nerfs to say the Hekaton/Sagitaur would inevitably spill over to the power of Beserks. But at least right now this isn't an issue, because the transports are great.

Clearly you could build a footslogging Squat force - and/or put half your points into basic Hearthkin - that would be slow and probably not all that good at scoring objectives. But why would you?

Bc one of their guns is range 12"...... They get 5 shots each and when 2 of them are out of range you go from 15 shots (before upgrade from 1 guy) to 9 shots. Yes the Beam gives you 2 more shots that can hit another unit but that then is only 18" which most units can move and charge that far, and 100% move and charge if you are within 12". If you want the beam to hit multiple units as well you are also at risk. Over all a 3 man unit is looking at 11 pseudo 12 shots outside of threat range.

I don't really follow. Okay sure the bikers have a 12" shotgun. But the rest of the units don't. How many shots should a 30 point model with M12 & a pre-game move, T5, 3 wounds and a 4+ AoC no rerolls to wound save have?

The Newman wrote:
I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

The same tournament circuit that banned them has banned every new codex at least until an FAQ comes out. It's only news now because @#$%ty sites like spikeybits can frame it as "Votann are so OP they got BANNED! *shocked face" for the clicks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They're really good. The only drawback is mobility...but you can take 18 bikes that have decent guns, good rules, 24" move and obsec. Not really slow when 1/3 of your army can be 24" move obsec units.

LD8 makes them susceptible to running if there's LD mods out there. I thought I read that they have an auto-pass strat though? Can't remember.

Also, weak LD has to be the easiest Downside to look past ever. Especially at their rumored ppm settings.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
LD8 makes them susceptible to running if there's LD mods out there. I thought I read that they have an auto-pass strat though? Can't remember.

Nobody takes low LD seriously as a weakness, come on dude. They already have the same LD as Marines too.

Hecaton wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
If people had a serious problem with how Judgement Tokens and Rail-Cannons then they should have had a problem with perma-transhuman armies, they should have been equally calling for bans on Harlequins or Tyranids and yet nothing stopped them from appearing in tournament games. People should have been calling for bans on Ad. Mech and cult of Strife/Drukhari with their consistent damage output and yet they were allowed to participate and dominate the meta no different to how Tyranids have done.

Why isn't your attitude "better late than never"? It sounds like you don't want the game to be better.

Trickle down game balance is real, at least as far as you're concerned. GT players have a better handle on Votann than you do.

Question: Why are you deliberately lying on a public online forum?

Such an obtuse viewpoint. The point isn't "better late than never" for all the issues presented. The point is people should have had an issue earlier with the fact their codexs/rules were realesed in such a state. If GW kept to their design philosphies right at the start and had every codex at the same level as the SM/Necron codex rather than ramping up the power creep, repeating the same issue edition by edition, at Drukhari/Ad.Mech. They souldn't need to wait a month for a balnce dataslate when it could have been handled earlier on in the book in the first place. GW have had 35 years of designing 40k with maxumum contyrol over what they do. Our attitude shouldn't be an easy pass to GW with "at least they're..." they should already be better.

The red flags were there from the start. What I see is a lot of people getting shocked about something that's been happening for a long time now in 9E. The game has not improved in quality, but has merely bloated itself in hard-counters of subversions of the core rules to finicky rules that require a self-made quick refrence sheet if you don't want to gain a migraine mid-game trying to remember certain rules. patched over with data slate after data-slate. At this point It would better serve GW for digital rules that they just update than going after the sluggish release for book after book. If Rumours are true and 10E is coming next year as another hard reset then what does it actually give Votann, Guard and WE a codex for? That's a question I think will only be answered when GW actually release the book.

Votann are just the end-game, the conclusion of GT players praising GW on a "good job" when that is not the case. It's a "good job" for GT players because GW had made a game to encourge/focus on the routine that they've been playing edition-by-edition. Votann represent all the red flags of the edition rules-wise in a single book. I fail to understand why so many GT players are upset when it's literally everything they could have wanted in a book, no different to 7E Craftworlds that they took. They didn't care then and they shouldn't care now.

Now here's where we come into the lie: Trickle-down Game Balence does not correlate with majority folks existing meta, at least as far as your concerned. If RTT's did by any stretch of the imagination then why isn't every game table of every type of game flooded by Harlequins, Leviathan Tyranids and now, Votann in every game? It's because there's a wide and far reach of models and factions/subfactions out there that people are invested in for a wide variety of reasons. There are so many factions and sub-factions in this game that people love, but sadly not everyone will find enjoyable games in some matchups. People in general are ok with uphill battles but when someone encounters a list/faction that can with against their opponent by early game by a landside with little to no agency to counterplay then it isn't really that well balanced for being "the best balnced edition to date".

Folks can say "Its balanced" but it won't be to that player if they felt they had no ability to counterplay at all. All that "statement" then becomes is a titilatiing, and smarmy remark. GT play does not represent the entirety of how the game is played and they shouldn't be used as the mouthpiece to speak on the behalf of the rest of the community.

9E is as balanced as any other edition. In many cases 9E is reflecting 7E in terms of its rules quality in bloat. People still buy the models to build and paint, that will never change and will be reflected in their annual report, but I've seen so many people just walk away from the game/hobby or just straight up jump to HH or KT to get some better external balance away from 40k, because they don't feel "included" in 40k anymore.

 The Warp Forge wrote:


Question: Why are you deliberately lying on a public online forum?

I'm not. And I'm not going to bother answering the rest of your inane rant if you're going to start it that way. It's clear that you're not worth engaging with if you're going to misrepresent what I'm saying to that degree. You don't understand competitive players, and you don't understand the game, you're just mindlessly bleating "competitive" bad like a scrub.