https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/29/leagues-of-votann-balance-update-a-word-from-james-workshop/

Points increase and auto wounds no longer count as a 6.

EDIT

Wow... is that the fastest invalidation of codex information ever?

That video is amazing. 😂

League of Votann Points Values

The Errata only has a single entry:

Page 86 – Eye of the Ancestors, 5th paragraph Change to read: ‘Note, if an attack automatically wounds the target as the result of this ability, then for the purposes of any other rules that are triggered on a particular wound roll, that attack is never considered to have been made with an unmodified wound roll of 6.’

 Flinty wrote:
Wow... is that the fastest invalidation of codex information ever?

Nope. Space Wolves have had an FAQ before release (Sagas, IIRC).

Games Workshop wrote:We've got a devoted rules team, and an amazing group of playtesters, but even after a rigorous testing period, sometimes we miss things that a passionate world-wide community of hundreds of thousands will quickly spot.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that a group who has been doing this one thing for this long can be so bad at this at such a consistent level.

Boooo on getting it wrong.

Good show for acknowledging, apologising and doing something about it. Note I didn’t say fixing. That remains to be seen.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Good show for acknowledging, apologising and doing something about it.

They're doing something because places are banning their new army they want people to buy.

Oh wow, a day 1 patch for a 60 dollar book. GW is truly the EA of Wargames.

 Flinty wrote:
Wow... is that the fastest invalidation of codex information ever?

No, Space Wolves hold that honour where by GW published a replacement for their 8th edition warlord traits 1 week prior to release.

Edit: Also, where is the Daemons FAQ? :(

They should scap the codex and reprint it with the new points values (and added paragraph), and offer a trade in for buyers stuck with the LE codex from the army box)

Thanks Beasts and Jake for the info. Looks like the Space Puppies will be hard to beat on that front.

JakeSiren wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Wow... is that the fastest invalidation of codex information ever?

No, Space Wolves hold that honour where by GW published a replacement for their 8th edition warlord traits 1 week prior to release.

Edit: Also, where is the Daemons FAQ? :(

Has the daemon book out month? The period faq's for new books wait as default.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Games Workshop wrote:We've got a devoted rules team, and an amazing group of playtesters, but even after a rigorous testing period, sometimes we miss things that a passionate world-wide community of hundreds of thousands will quickly spot.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that a group who has been doing this one thing for this long can be so bad at this at such a consistent level.

But they made a funny video! They said they're listening! I love NuGW!

 Arbitrator wrote:
But they made a funny video! They said they're listening! I love NuGW!

I just can't get this out of my head now.

Codex: Zoats confirmed!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Games Workshop wrote:We've got a devoted rules team, and an amazing group of playtesters, but even after a rigorous testing period, sometimes we miss things that a passionate world-wide community of hundreds of thousands will quickly spot.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that a group who has been doing this one thing for this long can be so bad at this at such a consistent level.

Yeaahhh......how many decades of practice do they need? The company has been doing 40k rules for 35 years now, and wargame rules in general for longer. You'd think that they'd have some sort of system by now. I find it hard to believe that they don't know just how strong things like auto-wounding mechanics are at this point.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Good show for acknowledging, apologising and doing something about it.

They're doing something because places are banning their new army they want people to buy.

People keep bringing this up, but isn't this standard practice in the Germany Tournament scene? No new codex until the FAQ is out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Good show for acknowledging, apologising and doing something about it.

They're doing something because places are banning their new army they want people to buy.

Why talk about pre banning a really poorly written book? To get this response.

GW wrote:We’re sorry we didn’t get these rules right out of the gate.

And we’ll fix it.

I don't remember them apologising before. Previously they would always try to pretend it was somehow someone else's fault (usually the players).This is a really good development. Hopefully a sign of a culture shift in the company.

tneva82 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Wow... is that the fastest invalidation of codex information ever?

No, Space Wolves hold that honour where by GW published a replacement for their 8th edition warlord traits 1 week prior to release.

Edit: Also, where is the Daemons FAQ? :(

Has the daemon book out month? The period faq's for new books wait as default.

It came out on the 3rd of September, so I guess two more days makes 4 weeks. I'm just feeling down on how the Daemons release was handled, and given the lack of excitement for the Daemons tactica thread, it doesn't seem like I'm the only one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
But they made a funny video! They said they're listening! I love NuGW!

I just can't get this out of my head now.

Comparing a company that did massive damage to the planet, to one that wrote a not particularly good book is some next level hyperbole.

Darn, there goes Mantic's biggest edge

Funny video, but what does he say at around 1:51 "And Molly is supposed to be alive at christmas anyway"?

EightFoldPath wrote:
Hopefully a sign of a culture shift in the company.

Might you be in the market for a bridge, good sir?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Games Workshop wrote:We've got a devoted rules team, and an amazing group of playtesters, but even after a rigorous testing period, sometimes we miss things that a passionate world-wide community of hundreds of thousands will quickly spot.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that a group who has been doing this one thing for this long can be so bad at this at such a consistent level.

Yeaahhh......how many decades of practice do they need? The company has been doing 40k rules for 35 years now, and wargame rules in general for longer. You'd think that they'd have some sort of system by now. I find it hard to believe that they don't know just how strong things like auto-wounding mechanics are at this point.

Balance isn't the objective, the objective is constant flux. The only thing here that's not working as intended is they've pushed the limit a little too far that they've decided the push back may impact sales and walked it back.

Chikout wrote:
Comparing a company that did massive damage to the planet, to one that wrote a not particularly good book is some next level hyperbole.

That rushing air noise is the point sailing over your head at alarming speeds.

Games Workshop wrote:We’re sorry we didn’t get these rules right out of the gate.

Hadn't expected to mark off "Games Workshop apologizing" on my 2022 Signs of the Apocalypse Bingo, but here we are.

One rule errata fair enough but so many points updates? What the hell is going on!

 NAVARRO wrote:
One rule errata fair enough but so many points updates? What the hell is going on!

Az got it in one:

 Azreal13 wrote:
... [they] pushed the limit a little too far that they've decided the push back may impact sales and walked it back.

Drong wrote:
Funny video, but what does he say at around 1:51 "And Molly is supposed to be alive at christmas anyway"?

And I'm only supposed to be alive at Christmas anyway


It's a play on the fact that James Workshop videos generally only appear at Christmas.

Great video, and I'm glad they are are making adjustments before folks are able to buy the models. Be interesting to see how the army with all these changes shakes out in a few months once folks have had a chance to build armies and bring them to events.

Drong wrote:
Funny video, but what does he say at around 1:51 "And Molly is supposed to be alive at christmas anyway"?

"I'm only supposed to be alive at Christmas anyway"

Is nobody else upset at the gall it takes to laugh in their consumers faces after all this?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Games Workshop wrote:We've got a devoted rules team, and an amazing group of playtesters, but even after a rigorous testing period, sometimes we miss things that a passionate world-wide community of hundreds of thousands will quickly spot.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that a group who has been doing this one thing for this long can be so bad at this at such a consistent level.

Yeaahhh......how many decades of practice do they need? The company has been doing 40k rules for 35 years now, and wargame rules in general for longer. You'd think that they'd have some sort of system by now. I find it hard to believe that they don't know just how strong things like auto-wounding mechanics are at this point.

Balance isn't the objective, the objective is constant flux. The only thing here that's not working as intended is they've pushed the limit a little too far that they've decided the push back may impact sales and walked it back.

Well, yes. That's what myself and (I think) H.B.M.C are saying: They did this on purpose, and knew exactly what they were doing. They've just realized that they went too far, and are walking it back. Sorry for not being more clear.

Yeah, I thought you thought they are actually trying to balance the game, rather than operating an already near-perfected miniatures selling vehicle.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
They did this on purpose, and knew exactly what they were doing.

Hanlon's Razor. I just don't think they care if they create unbalanced things, unless it potentially impacts sales in a negative manner.

They were fine when people were buying 9 Voidweavers because it never reached the point where people were about to wholesale ban Harlis on a massive scale. Here they have a new army to sell, and it being banned before it even comes out? Can't have that!

 Fergie0044 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Good show for acknowledging, apologising and doing something about it.

They're doing something because places are banning their new army they want people to buy.

People keep bringing this up, but isn't this standard practice in the Germany Tournament scene? No new codex until the FAQ is out.

Worth noting that the daemons codex is currently "banned" in the same events for this reason too. Not as many clickbaity community articles & yootoobers talking about that though.

I find it interesting that this is still an assumed ban, there haven't been any events they'd otherwise have been permitted to attend yet that banned them yes? The bulk of the army isn't available for purchase, none of the units are stand alone.

There can't have been any negative impact to the sales of the army yet as you can't buy them. Even failing that, most gamers are garage hammer or small club players where it need not apply. The biggest US events are now at least in partnership with GW and/or GW events so wouldn't be banning them.

As a result I don't think it's a fear of lack of sales forcing the change.

I know it's about sending a message with the bans, but I don't think the impact if they'd called people's bluff would have been as detrimental as people think.

 NAVARRO wrote:
One rule errata fair enough but so many points updates? What the hell is going on!

They released most busted codex ever but when tournaments started to ban them which would affect sales as try-hards won't buy army they can't use so had to tone down.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
They did this on purpose, and knew exactly what they were doing.

Hanlon's Razor. I just don't think they care if they create unbalanced things, unless it potentially impacts sales in a negative manner.

They were fine when people were buying 9 Voidweavers because it never reached the point where people were about to wholesale ban Harlis on a massive scale. Here they have a new army to sell, and it being banned before it even comes out? Can't have that!

Whether they care, or not, isn't the question. It's whether or not they know what they're doing when they create the unbalance. At this point, they have to know when they do it. It doesn't matter if they're fine with it, or not, or why they do it. The point is it isn't a mistake. They know what they're doing.

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

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

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

So my group are doing a Crusade starting Oct 1st. What about Power Level? Surely some of these points increases warrant a PL change too?

 xttz wrote:

 Fergie0044 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Good show for acknowledging, apologising and doing something about it.

They're doing something because places are banning their new army they want people to buy.

People keep bringing this up, but isn't this standard practice in the Germany Tournament scene? No new codex until the FAQ is out.

Worth noting that the daemons codex is currently "banned" in the same events for this reason too. Not as many clickbaity community articles & yootoobers talking about that though.

Are daemons banned entirely or do they just have to use their old rules?
Squats don't have a compatible old ruleset to fall back on for tournaments, so that might make a difference.

No One Important wrote:

Are daemons banned entirely or do they just have to use their old rules?
Squats don't have a compatible old ruleset to fall back on for tournaments, so that might make a difference.

Yeah I believe they have to use their old book.

As I understand the German WTC also enforces a rule about not using units until the official model is released, which is the other driving factor of the 'ban'.

GW recognizes their mistake, apologize and offer a solution.
Love it.

Now this surely does not mean i am absolutely happy with the way 40k is treated/designed recently.
But it is without a doubt a step into the right direction!

Drong wrote:
Funny video, but what does he say at around 1:51 "And Molly is supposed to be alive at christmas anyway"?

I think he says "I'm only supposed to be alive at Christmas time anyway."

I wonder it this was done for next edition and they forgot to tone it down for current edition, that also would explain the gear on models that is not covered on the rules.

Either way this is not cool.

It's not just Germany.

The Legion of Voltron is banned in Egypt as well.

Y'know, for all 3 of us who play.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Whether they care, or not, isn't the question. It's whether or not they know what they're doing when they create the unbalance. At this point, they have to know when they do it. It doesn't matter if they're fine with it, or not, or why they do it. The point is it isn't a mistake. They know what they're doing.

I don't think so.

We know that the 40k the studio plays is very different from what the actual rules are, so I don't think they know about the imbalances they create because they never see them, and, on top of that, I don't think they care enough to try and find them and play the game like everyone else does.

 MinscS2 wrote:
These changes are half-assed, overdone and rushed.

But how can that be, with their devoted rules team and amazing group of playtesters that put rules through rigorous testing periods? You must be mistaken.

 bullyboy wrote:
So my group are doing a Crusade starting Oct 1st. What about Power Level? Surely some of these points increases warrant a PL change too?

I can think of two answers to the power level question.

The first one is that because of the inherent limitations of the system, power level doesn't accurately reflect the value of units. Changing the old numbers that don't accurately reflect the value of units to new numbers that don't accurately reflect the value of units is considered unnecessary work by the designers because it doesn't change anything.

The second one is that the tournament crowd is in an uproar, and damage control is directed towards them. Hence point changes. Whereas GW operates under the belief that the narrative crowd doesn't object, and no action is required on that end.

Until people who use power level can threaten GW's bottom line, there's a good chance that the evaluation of GW's devoted rules team and amazing group of playtesters that put the power level values through rigorous testing periods to determine that those are the most balanced numbers they could achieve stands.

I'm glad that "release now, patch later" mindset has made it to the physical games market as well!

From WarCom...

How Did This Happen?
Warhammer 40,000 is a big, complex game with lots of factors to account for, and codexes are usually written and sent off for printing a good few months ahead of publication. In practice, this means it’s not always clear what kind of competitive environment a new book will drop into. In this instance, the army was tested against other recent books like Aeldari and Tyranids – many of which have seen their own increases in points and rules adjustments since their release to align with the wider game.

LMFAO!!!

Seriously?!?! GW just admitted their "play testing" isn't play testing at all.

Oh wow, first 40k codex I've bought in more than ten years (with some pretty models) and it's already mulch? Bought it for lore and art for the most part but my mates are going to have a good chuckle at my expense with this. We all believe that GW rule books are an absolute waste of perfectly good natural resources and incidents such as this just reinforce that.

 oni wrote:
From WarCom...

How Did This Happen?
Warhammer 40,000 is a big, complex game with lots of factors to account for, and codexes are usually written and sent off for printing a good few months ahead of publication. In practice, this means it’s not always clear what kind of competitive environment a new book will drop into. In this instance, the army was tested against other recent books like Aeldari and Tyranids – many of which have seen their own increases in points and rules adjustments since their release to align with the wider game.

LMFAO!!!

Seriously?!?! GW just admitted their "play testing" isn't play testing at all.

There isn't enough info to make that conclusion in full but yes in essence their playtesting is basically functional testing against other books of the same cycle if you will. This means that Eldar, Nids & Votann were likely written at the same time and tested against each other at the minimum and locked in sometime last year as a guess.

What we can't conclude in totality is whether they test against other books, whether they were staggered in any way, when they were tested and I think importantly which mission packs.

Dudeface wrote:

 oni wrote:
From WarCom...

How Did This Happen?
Warhammer 40,000 is a big, complex game with lots of factors to account for, and codexes are usually written and sent off for printing a good few months ahead of publication. In practice, this means it’s not always clear what kind of competitive environment a new book will drop into. In this instance, the army was tested against other recent books like Aeldari and Tyranids – many of which have seen their own increases in points and rules adjustments since their release to align with the wider game.

LMFAO!!!

Seriously?!?! GW just admitted their "play testing" isn't play testing at all.

There isn't enough info to make that conclusion in full but yes in essence their playtesting is basically functional testing against other books of the same cycle if you will. This means that Eldar, Nids & Votann were likely written at the same time and tested against each other at the minimum and locked in sometime last year as a guess.

What we can't conclude in totality is whether they test against other books, whether they were staggered in any way, when they were tested and I think importantly which mission packs.

I think it's crystal clear.

WarCom wrote:In this instance, the army was tested against other recent books

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Whether they care, or not, isn't the question. It's whether or not they know what they're doing when they create the unbalance. At this point, they have to know when they do it. It doesn't matter if they're fine with it, or not, or why they do it. The point is it isn't a mistake. They know what they're doing.

I don't think so.

We know that the 40k the studio plays is very different from what the actual rules are, so I don't think they know about the imbalances they create because they never see them, and, on top of that, I don't think they care enough to try and find them and play the game like everyone else does.

Anecdotal story, but a local guy I know apparently playtested during one of the phases of 30k 2.0. According to him, GW was getting frustrated with sending playtest documents to "the Americans" because the Americans kept pointing out problematic/unclear wording and/or stuff that was too weak/too strong.

Take with a grain of salt, because, you know, "I know a guy who knows a guy", but if that's how they operate it's especially funny.

That's a hefty points increase, I'm curious how players will adjust their armies with this.

Some players are definitely trying to melt their 3D prints back down after seeing those prices lol.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Whether they care, or not, isn't the question. It's whether or not they know what they're doing when they create the unbalance. At this point, they have to know when they do it. It doesn't matter if they're fine with it, or not, or why they do it. The point is it isn't a mistake. They know what they're doing.

I don't think so.

We know that the 40k the studio plays is very different from what the actual rules are, so I don't think they know about the imbalances they create because they never see them, and, on top of that, I don't think they care enough to try and find them and play the game like everyone else does.

So differently that they don't understand how strong having a widely available ability that skips a step in the long standing: hit-wound-save system for damage resolution is? I mean, they do have at least some rules writers that understand that stuff, they just work on other games. Maybe they should, I don't know, talk?

Rozenfire wrote:
Is nobody else upset at the gall it takes to laugh in their consumers faces after all this?

I agree. I found the video to be in good humor until the very last line "Well, I don't feel bad anymore." My impression immediately shifted to GW playing politics. They don't fething care. This is a hollow response to banning LoV because it could hurt sales.


This gives credence to a post I made a little while ago.

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.

But in this case, the banning will hurt sales, so GW's hand was forced.

Now let's continue the ban/boycott to prove a point. Nobody buys their rhetoric of "oh we totally tested against other codices" garbage.

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

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

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

The entire point of the change was to reduce that synergy.

Also lol, lmao thinking Votann will be a low tier army because of these changes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
But they made a funny video! They said they're listening! I love NuGW!

I just can't get this out of my head now.

This came to mind

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Now let's continue the ban/boycott to prove a point. Nobody buys their rhetoric of "oh we totally tested against other codices" garbage.

I'm sure they did, and I'm sure they did before those codices received their own much needed nerfs. The problem is they're still pushing power to sell figures so over time as the community rebels against previous entries and they get toned down, the gap gets wider. Every new book is +1 or so to the book before it, and eventually gets some of that cut back, but since they're designing the next book to be +1 to that, eventually get a +7 release after the +5/+6 books have had their emergency nerfs back to only being +2/+3 better than the codices from the start of the edition.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Games Workshop wrote:We've got a devoted rules team, and an amazing group of playtesters, but even after a rigorous testing period, sometimes we miss things that a passionate world-wide community of hundreds of thousands will quickly spot.

I don't believe you.

I don't believe that a group who has been doing this one thing for this long can be so bad at this at such a consistent level.

Yeaahhh......how many decades of practice do they need? The company has been doing 40k rules for 35 years now, and wargame rules in general for longer. You'd think that they'd have some sort of system by now. I find it hard to believe that they don't know just how strong things like auto-wounding mechanics are at this point.

Companies themselves don't have memory and experience though, just those working in them. GW pay too little to maintain rules people for long, as they don't seem to consider it a core part of their offering. Hence the same mistake are made over and over and the work is continually done by people with limited experience.

GW admits clear as day in the WarCom article that LoV were only tested against current books like Aeldari (probably Drukhari) and Tyranids.

This is an insight into GW's internal play testing and it's abysmal to say the least.

It highlight how codex creep happens and why it gets progressively worse as the edition goes on.

Weren’t all the play testers fired following leaks?

 GaroRobe wrote:
Weren’t all the play testers fired following leaks?

Yes... and other speculative reasons.

But it's also speculated that this book was being worked on before the external play tester terminations and was only ever going to be tested in-house to prevent leaks.

Anyone else get a vague sense that the video is the WarCom guys going 'this crap gets shoved out by devs who don't know what they're doing and we have to clean up the mess'?

At any rate I do appreciate the video, I do appreciate the change. It is better than nothing, a LOT better. But I hesitate to accept the apology without evidence things will be any better in the future.

Would it be better to be testing against the codexes that come out during the first six months of each edition in order to keep to a baseline?

You do wonder if there is some truth hidden behind the jokes in the video.

"I have to give codex Zoats an army wide 2+ invulnerable save. No I have no idea what it means either."

Perhaps someone is sick of fixing rules for a single game designer who has a flimsy grasp on the game mechanics and/or maths.

 Souleater wrote:
Would it be better to be testing against the codexes that come out during the first six months of each edition in order to keep to a baseline?

That would be sensible, in an ideal world they should test against any in-print at time of testing books & whatever else is in parallel development. That simply isn't possible in the time it would take and the cost it would be for the staff to do the testing. They've shown time and again that external testers don't respect their requests to keep things confidential so not shocked that avenue isn't looked into any more.

Being an optimist I'm hoping they took the route they did because they felt they were concerned with the functional aspect of the books and making sure they were "fun" rather than "balanced", then thought they better understood the state of the game than they do.

More likely someone in charge has no idea wtf they're doing and just said "we're making these 3, cut costs and balance against each other"

EightFoldPath wrote:
You do wonder if there is some truth hidden behind the jokes in the video.

"I have to give codex Zoats an army wide 2+ invulnerable save. No I have no idea what it means either."

Perhaps someone is sick of fixing rules for a single game designer who has a flimsy grasp on the game mechanics and/or maths.

"You're going to keep buying this barely tested, broken, overpriced crap no matter what and some of you will still think our self-referencing jokes about it are funny."

 GaroRobe wrote:
Weren’t all the play testers fired following leaks?

Which happened so lately couldn't matter as book was done and produced by then. Leadtimes.

 Souleater wrote:
Would it be better to be testing against the codexes that come out during the first six months of each edition in order to keep to a baseline?

It begs the question, what did they test Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons against? They were all significantly weaker than release Dark Eldar, Custodes, Craftworlds (are Harlies), Tau, Tyranids and Votann.

I find this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000)#9th_Edition to be very helpful in visualising this kind of question, as the testing "buckets" claim/theory still doesn't really make much logical sense to me. It seems like a really poor deliberate design choice to make.

 bullyboy wrote:
So my group are doing a Crusade starting Oct 1st. What about Power Level? Surely some of these points increases warrant a PL change too?

PL is only updated once a year, otherwise too many people get their panties into a bunch about PL stealing their valuable development time.

If you use the Warhammer app, does everything get updated automagically or do I still have go and track down all the FAQs?

Thev get added there sooner or later

 Necros wrote:
If you use the Warhammer app, does everything get updated automagically or do I still have go and track down all the FAQs?

Automatically assuming you own the book and entered the code.

 Jidmah wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
So my group are doing a Crusade starting Oct 1st. What about Power Level? Surely some of these points increases warrant a PL change too?

PL is only updated once a year, otherwise too many people get their panties into a bunch about PL stealing their valuable development time.

1 second spent on PL is 1 second too many to begin with

Dudeface wrote:
That simply isn't possible in the time it would take and the cost it would be for the staff to do the testing.

well, not that GW is the company having the money needed and they can take any time they need to do it
it is not like the must release a new untested faction now because otherwise they are going bankrupt or the community going bonkers because the Space Dwarfs are not released in 2022

no one new that they were coming, so no one cares of they are out now, in 6 months or 2 years
they just don't want to spend the money on it (has nothing to do with possibilities) as people are going to buy it anyway no matter how bad the rules are

Points up on everything is probably a bit overboard, but most of the votann units were just a little bit too points efficient before. They also didn’t remove the actual auto wound mechanic, just the part that generated the most absurd combos. They should still be strong but not nearly as likely to table enemy armies. While I’d wish that they’d figured this out three or so months ago before this book went to print, I’m at least glad they put this out before the most pushed wave 2 minis came out (beserks, land fortresses).

First impressions of this change overall are that this is pretty in line with other game companies with equivalently complex games. Definitely a bigger mistake or miscalculation than the average cause otherwise they’d not have felt the need to release a news article about it, but getting ahead of the crisis is better than destroying both competitive and casual markets for their new release.

 kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
That simply isn't possible in the time it would take and the cost it would be for the staff to do the testing.

well, not that GW is the company having the money needed and they can take any time they need to do it
it is not like the must release a new untested faction now because otherwise they are going bankrupt or the community going bonkers because the Space Dwarfs are not released in 2022

no one new that they were coming, so no one cares of they are out now, in 6 months or 2 years
they just don't want to spend the money on it (has nothing to do with possibilities) as people are going to buy it anyway no matter how bad the rules are

Their investors care, their design team care, they need to release something so it was one codex or another.

Regards possibilities, if you played each faction against votann in each mission from the nephilim pack, you're looking at 225 games. That's (allowing time for note taking and report writing) 787.5 hours at 3.5 per game. Standard 7.5 hour working day, that's 105 days for 2 people, just to check each mission for 1 game against each book and mirror matches.

No it isn't possible for them to thoroughly test everything.

It is possible. They just don't want to spend the resource, or organise some kind of Warhammer Playtest Festival where they could get an infinite number of playtesters willing to help them out for free.

yeah, so GW would need 5 months for playtesting if they are doing the minimum with 2 people, or 2 months for 6 people

given that you need the full 3.5 hours to find out that rules are broken and not tabling an army within 1 hour

and this need to be done anyway as they need the data to actually write their yearly balance update

yeah, so 2 months work to get 2 very important products right which are the main selling points of the main product

or skip it, throw gak on the wall because there are enough people saying that it is not possible anyway and pay for bad rules because the models look nice

Well, they've apparently learned not to blame the player base, the way they did with the Iron Hands and some of those supplements.

As weak and sad as this screw up is, it sounds a little better than 'we didn't expect you to use the rules this way' [as written].

But still. This is a nice addition to the tally of failure.

Drong wrote:
Funny video, but what does he say at around 1:51 "And Molly is supposed to be alive at christmas anyway"?

Thought he said "Im only supposed to be alive at Xmas" which makes more sense considering he doesnt get trotted out very often.

tneva82 wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:
Weren’t all the play testers fired following leaks?

Which happened so lately couldn't matter as book was done and produced by then. Leadtimes.

That’s what I mean. Didn’t they lose all their experienced play testers?

Kind of reminds me when Kirby wanted Wraithknight to be OP, so everyone would buy it. This time though, it's being managed by 'nu-GW', who sincerely, honestly, care about gamers and want all the best for them. Definitely not caring about their profits, nor creating illusions, to make sheeple think they are looked after

We all shoud ask a refunt for the lov codex.

Seems good.

Competitive-minded people can actually challenge their skills (a little)

Fluff-/Dwarf-loving people can enjoy the army without automatically being "that guy" as a collateral.

Non-Dwarf-playing people can at least pretend they have a chance for 2 or 3 rounds.

GW apologizes for an obvious mistake.

Win-win all around. Well done.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
Would it be better to be testing against the codexes that come out during the first six months of each edition in order to keep to a baseline?

It begs the question, what did they test Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights, Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons against? They were all significantly weaker than release Dark Eldar, Custodes, Craftworlds (are Harlies), Tau, Tyranids and Votann.

I find this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000)#9th_Edition to be very helpful in visualising this kind of question, as the testing "buckets" claim/theory still doesn't really make much logical sense to me. It seems like a really poor deliberate design choice to make.

Each other probably if they’ve siloed their play testing to a small number of books (to identify leaks?)

 kodos wrote:
yeah, so GW would need 5 months for playtesting if they are doing the minimum with 2 people, or 2 months for 6 people

given that you need the full 3.5 hours to find out that rules are broken and not tabling an army within 1 hour

and this need to be done anyway as they need the data to actually write their yearly balance update

yeah, so 2 months work to get 2 very important products right which are the main selling points of the main product

or skip it, throw gak on the wall because there are enough people saying that it is not possible anyway and pay for bad rules because the models look nice

Give they release 1 new product a month, you're looking at a minimum of 12 full time playtesters, all of which get time for 1 pass. If they need to feedback and alter the points/rules they should start again. That's also just 2k current mission pack, not crusade or pl, nor 1k, and you'd want 1 list assumingly for control.

It's still not good enough for the quality people expect.

 skeleton wrote:
We all shoud ask a refunt for the lov codex.

"Hello GW. You know that one section in the codex you've repeatedly amended several times a year since 2017? Yeah that points bit which was scheduled to be replaced in about a couple of months time. Well updating it today with a single page PDF download has RUINED my gaming experience. Wait why are you laughing? This is super serious!"

Dudeface wrote:
Give they release 1 new product a month

does not change things as the ongoing testing is done anyway
it just means that they need dedicated testers and not the devs doing it themselves

and smaller companies with less money and people can do it as well, difference is just that there are people who instead of not buying bad products just search for excuses why it is impossible to make it better and give GW the money

It shouldn’t take long to realise that ‘hit rolls of 4+ autowound’ is overpowered. That shouldn’t need okay testing- someone should just look at that and decide that completely bypassing the wound roll by dumping some tokens on it may not be the most balanced thing.

kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Give they release 1 new product a month

does not change things as the ongoing testing is done anyway
it just means that they need dedicated testers and not the devs doing it themselves

and smaller companies with less money and people can do it as well, difference is just that there are people who instead of not buying bad products just search for excuses why it is impossible to make it better and give GW the money

Souleater wrote:It shouldn’t take long to realise that ‘hit rolls of 4+ autowound’ is overpowered. That shouldn’t need okay testing- someone should just look at that and decide that completely bypassing the wound roll by dumping some tokens on it may not be the most balanced thing.

You're both right, but I was just trying to highlight that unless they hire dozens of people they cannot provide the level of in-depth play testing people expect. It's always said that events like the WTC, ATC and LVO etc will provide more playtest data, faster, than GW can manage in house and whilst this book undoubtedly had some blind eyes turned to it or high levels of ignorance, some peoples standards are too high for GW to meet.

Sadly as above, they gak the bed on this one for one reason or another.

Corporation technically apologised.

Corporation is good.

Corporation is my fwend.

This whole debacle is embarrassing. I feel like such a chump being as optimistic as I've been about this release. The models are great, but what the f-ity f is this design studio doing?!

Why the Christ would I pay through the nose for such an amateurish hack job of a rule set? Christ almighty...

Dudeface wrote:
hey cannot provide the level of in-depth play testing people expect..

no one is asking for in-depth testing on expert level, just simply testing the stuff at all and having people who not wrote the rules play a normal game against normal factions

and you cannot tell me that a person playing the factions ones against Orcs or Marines would tell the designers that everything is fine and can be released

 bullyboy wrote:
So my group are doing a Crusade starting Oct 1st. What about Power Level? Surely some of these points increases warrant a PL change too?

I'd suggest scaling the power level based on the increases the units got. There are a few instances of PL being wildly different to the 20 points = 1 PL ratio (specifically one of the ork fliers and the kratos) We just amend the PL accordingly. Hopefully GW catches up eventually.

Billion pound corporation continues putting out a less developed product than one random dude publishing free pdfs on Wargame Vault in his spare time, news at 11.

 xttz wrote:

 skeleton wrote:
We all shoud ask a refunt for the lov codex.

"Hello GW. You know that one section in the codex you've repeatedly amended several times a year since 2017? Yeah that points bit which was scheduled to be replaced in about a couple of months time. Well updating it today with a single page PDF download has RUINED my gaming experience. Wait why are you laughing? This is super serious!"

They made it defunct before it was even released. It doesn't matter changes happen when it's that quick.

Who would have thought that if you give an army an ability that triggers on wound rolls of 6, and a rule that explicitly triggers abilities that activate on a wound roll of 6, these two things might interact in some way?

I mean, these rules are two whole paragraphs apart from each other!

Surely the only thing that could possibly have caught this unforeseen rules interaction is more extensive playtesting and not, for example, a quick glance from anyone who got a C+ at GCSE English

Keep on GWing, GW.

Charax wrote:
Who would have thought that if you give an army an ability that triggers on wound rolls of 6, and a rule that explicitly triggers abilities that activate on a wound roll of 6, these two things might interact in some way?

I mean, these rules are two whole paragraphs apart from each other!

Surely the only thing that could possibly have caught this unforeseen rules interaction is more extensive playtesting and not, for example, a quick glance from anyone who got a C+ at GCSE English

Keep on GWing, GW.

Seriously. They really need to offer a decent compensation package to attract some competent game designers. I suppose the other alternative is that the higher-ups are directing the design team to build deliberately over-powered armies, and this is just a reaction to the community backlash.

Either way, this is inexcusable. I don't think I'll be spending anything on this release for a while at least.

Dudeface wrote:

kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Give they release 1 new product a month

does not change things as the ongoing testing is done anyway
it just means that they need dedicated testers and not the devs doing it themselves

and smaller companies with less money and people can do it as well, difference is just that there are people who instead of not buying bad products just search for excuses why it is impossible to make it better and give GW the money

They are an extremely wealthy corporation. They should have triple the playtesters.

However I'm glad they did something with th Op rules.

Souleater wrote:It shouldn’t take long to realise that ‘hit rolls of 4+ autowound’ is overpowered. That shouldn’t need okay testing- someone should just look at that and decide that completely bypassing the wound roll by dumping some tokens on it may not be the most balanced thing.

You're both right, but I was just trying to highlight that unless they hire dozens of people they cannot provide the level of in-depth play testing people expect. It's always said that events like the WTC, ATC and LVO etc will provide more playtest data, faster, than GW can manage in house and whilst this book undoubtedly had some blind eyes turned to it or high levels of ignorance, some peoples standards are too high for GW to meet.

Sadly as above, they gak the bed on this one for one reason or another.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Billion pound corporation continues putting out a less developed product than one random dude publishing free pdfs on Wargame Vault in his spare time, news at 11.

In a late breaking update, to this unusual item, incensed customers vow to show the company what for while continuing to buy their products at record setting pace. It’s counterintuitive, Steve. Back to you.

I would buy Zoats for sure regardless of rules.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
This whole debacle is embarrassing. I feel like such a chump being as optimistic as I've been about this release. The models are great, but what the f-ity f is this design studio doing?!

Why the Christ would I pay through the nose for such an amateurish hack job of a rule set? Christ almighty...

Thing is it was intentional. They just messed up on how blatantly obviously op it was.

It being OP and the nerf were preplanned. It just backfired when there started to come danger of bans for army hurting sales.

This is an absolute shambles to say the least.

At least they have acknowleged that they got it wrong and tried correcting it somewhat.

Maybe they'll get it right when they release Squat 2.0s

I think they have already given up on rules

just put out as much as possible before 10th hit, make another Edition like 8th Fantasy to get as much money as possible and than revert to "the game does not matter, it is all about collecting models and painting them, because it is impossible to make a good game anyway"

 NAVARRO wrote:
I would buy Zoats for sure regardless of rules.

If Zoats don't have an army-wide 2++ I'm burning my Zoat army.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Corporation technically apologised.

Corporation is good.

Corporation is my fwend.

We should stop being so entitled and THANK Games Workshop for getting it wrong, these 'mistakes' (or FEATURES as I think we should call them) is technically time spent engaging with The Hobby. A night out would cost more than the pleasure I get from scribbling out points (or 'errors' as the whiners call them *eyeroll*) in my new £35 codex, so it's well worth it!

Thank you James!

 Dendarien wrote:


Also lol, lmao thinking Votann will be a low tier army because of these changes.

I guess we'll find out, won't we?
Increasing the pointcost of models across the entire codex (bar troops) by 25-35% is massive, not even Tyranids got nerfed this hard.

 Souleater wrote:
It shouldn’t take long to realise that ‘hit rolls of 4+ autowound’ is overpowered. That shouldn’t need okay testing- someone should just look at that and decide that completely bypassing the wound roll by dumping some tokens on it may not be the most balanced thing.

You make it sound like dumping 3 JT's on everything the LoV-player wants dead is super-easy. It's not.
If LoV always did autowound on 4+, then they would be completely busted. Luckily that mechanic is gated by events that's not always in the LoV-players hands.

"Most Play Tested Edition Ever"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
They did this on purpose, and knew exactly what they were doing.

Hanlon's Razor. I just don't think they care if they create unbalanced things, unless it potentially impacts sales in a negative manner.

They were fine when people were buying 9 Voidweavers because it never reached the point where people were about to wholesale ban Harlis on a massive scale. Here they have a new army to sell, and it being banned before it even comes out? Can't have that!

This about sums it up. Might as well close the thread now.

GW are a company (based in the financially wobbly UK... the BoE has had to step in to attempt to 'fix' the mini budget disaster), about to enter what is looking to be a bleak winter for businesses (energy costs, inflation, lower disposal income, etc) so I think they are more vigilant about anything that could potentially disrupt their sales which they can control.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Maybe they'll get it right when they release Squat 2.0s

This is a very good point. A new Votaan Codex with the other half of their miniature range is only 12-18 months away, so maybe they'll get that one right.

But they probably won't. Because GW is GW.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So differently that they don't understand how strong having a widely available ability that skips a step in the long standing: hit-wound-save system for damage resolution is? I mean, they do have at least some rules writers that understand that stuff, they just work on other games. Maybe they should, I don't know, talk?

I think you put more time into writing the above than they did into really considering the ramifications of auto-wounds that count as a natural 6. I doubt that that thought even crossed their minds as they were writing it, and if it did, it was probably accompanying by either a complete lack of understanding at how that would play out or a "Well, it's just a fun rule. I doubt it'll be abused".

It's been apparent for years to anyone who played both AoS and 40k that the rules teams cannot possibly interact in any fashion whatsoever, lest they risk sharing ideas.

With the points hike of most of the units it looks like I'm going Hearthkyn spam.

Why are they nerfing everything before the majority of the models are even out?

This makes no sense.

The price increase for the heathguard and berserkers might be a bit much.

Tbh I think GW should just do points costs for all armies, hell even the rules as a digital living document. Codexes should be shifted into lore/art sourcebooks only. This game has been wildly unstable for too long, I don't know how anyone can keep up with it.

All the negativity in here is so dumb. Yes, GW fethed up pretty hard with the Votann release, given how obviously busted the book is (or rather, was before this nerf), but unlike in editions past where blatantly broken stuff remained as it was in the game for years, they immediately change it to stop the meta from being adversely affected. And still, all anyone does is complain. GW just can't win for losing, I guess. People are gonna piss and moan no matter what they do.

As for how I feel about the nerfs themselves, I think it leaves the army with plenty of teeth while toning down a lot of the absolutely busted gak. When shooting at a unit with 3 JTs, auto wounding on 4+ is crazy good still, even if it doesn't proc the big effects. It makes it where even their small arms can credibly threaten something like a Knight or a Great Unclean One, so the army should still have plenty of power. They just won't be able to take as much stuff as before, and that's okay. What's more, if it turns out that they've gone too far and made the army too weak, they can always walk some of the changes back in the next points update or balance dataslate (and despite all the bitching in this thread, those dataslates are a great thing for the game and have done wonders to keep the meta healthier than it's ever been).

I'm sure I'm gonna get called a "GW White Knight" or an apologist or something else, but I don't care. I still enjoy the game, I still love the models, and I've been pretty happy with how GW has been handling balance issues in the last few years. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
So differently that they don't understand how strong having a widely available ability that skips a step in the long standing: hit-wound-save system for damage resolution is? I mean, they do have at least some rules writers that understand that stuff, they just work on other games. Maybe they should, I don't know, talk?

I think you put more time into writing the above than they did into really considering the ramifications of auto-wounds that count as a natural 6. I doubt that that thought even crossed their minds as they were writing it, and if it did, it was probably accompanying by either a complete lack of understanding at how that would play out or a "Well, it's just a fun rule. I doubt it'll be abused".

I think part of the problem is mindset. Even if they know that a rule is strong, I don't think they realize just how strong or overpowered it might be because they don't push the boundaries and try to break things, whereas real players and external playtesters do.

I am always reminded of Gav Thorpe's mentality from back in 3rd edition for the Eldar Codex though I think it is probably representative of GW as a whole. He knew some choices like star cannons were stronger than others which were mediocre. However instead of realizing that players would load up on the good choice and create overpowered star cannon spam lists, he thought that people would take a mix of good and bad choices to average it out to medium power. GW design and internal playtester has always had this problem because they don't seem to try skewed lists and I don't know whether they are restricted to the inefficient mix that they have painted up as their Studio army. That means they never see themselves how a strong rule might be acceptable if only applicable sparingly but become overpowered if too widely applicable, especially if there is a synergistic combo.

This would mostly be solved by not allowing spamming of units/weapons...or even more easily solved if you're not an donkey-cave

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
"Most Play Tested Edition Ever"

Iit was. They just stopped before writing any of the codexes.

I haven't bought into the Votann at all or really followed their rules so far.

I did watch the series of Votann battle reports via Warhammer TV.

Is this change linked to the rule that caused the Ork player to say something along the lines of:

"You rolled a 1 and have hit me twice"

Is thus as big as Andy Chambers apologising for the Virus Outbreak strategy card back in 2nd Ed and telling players to rip the card up?

 dan2026 wrote:
Why are they nerfing everything before the majority of the models are even out?

This makes no sense.

To power trip. They can take advantage of the players, so why not?

 dan2026 wrote:
Why are they nerfing everything before the majority of the models are even out?

This makes no sense.

Because that is when all nerfs should happen. And hopefully is when all future nerfs happens, so nobody's weekend is ever again wasted by having to play against stupid gak like Crusher or 9 Voidweavers ever again.

 dan2026 wrote:
Why are they nerfing everything before the majority of the models are even out?

This makes no sense.

Because army was provenly op as hell to the effect it was leading to bans which hurts their sales. Their marketing ploy backfired.

Rules just didn't look op but games showed them to be op

tneva82 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
Why are they nerfing everything before the majority of the models are even out?

This makes no sense.

Because army was provenly op as hell to the effect it was leading to bans which hurts their sales. Their marketing ploy backfired.

Rules just didn't look op but games showed them to be op

They already sold out on pre-orders, this wasn't about sales. And most players do not play in tournaments.

Not that it matters to me. Check my list, I play Thurian with Uthar. I'm actually one of the least effected and didn't spend a dime, I'm one of the few that gets to keep their Auto-6s.

Loyal customers who spent a lot of hard earned money? Well I hope they plan on playing Thurian.Lol.

Asenion wrote:
They already sold out on pre-orders, this wasn't about sales. And most players do not play in tournaments.

Don't be so short-sighted. They were worried about the upcoming full release. An it was bad press, regardless of whether most people play in tournaments or not.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Because that is when all nerfs should happen

It should happen before the book is published. Because they should have done proper testing, something they still don't do. How do you not get this? Why are you the only person in this thread buying GW's bull gak hook, line and sinker?

Given the lead times in production is there any chance that the changes will be present when the "standard" Votann codex is released?

ListenToMeWarriors wrote:
Given the lead times in production is there any chance that the changes will be present when the "standard" Votann codex is released?

Smart money's on no, but that could depend on when they intend to release the Votann. If it's before the end of the year, then no, that ship has sailed. But if it was a mid-2023 thing, then yeah, there's still a chance.

They take many months to do these codexes right? How did they managed to rebalance the full codex with so many points changes, in just a few days?

 ZergSmasher wrote:
All the negativity in here is so dumb. Yes, GW fethed up pretty hard with the Votann release, given how obviously busted the book is (or rather, was before this nerf), but unlike in editions past where blatantly broken stuff remained as it was in the game for years, they immediately change it to stop the meta from being adversely affected. And still, all anyone does is complain. GW just can't win for losing, I guess. People are gonna piss and moan no matter what they do.

As for how I feel about the nerfs themselves, I think it leaves the army with plenty of teeth while toning down a lot of the absolutely busted gak. When shooting at a unit with 3 JTs, auto wounding on 4+ is crazy good still, even if it doesn't proc the big effects. It makes it where even their small arms can credibly threaten something like a Knight or a Great Unclean One, so the army should still have plenty of power. They just won't be able to take as much stuff as before, and that's okay. What's more, if it turns out that they've gone too far and made the army too weak, they can always walk some of the changes back in the next points update or balance dataslate (and despite all the bitching in this thread, those dataslates are a great thing for the game and have done wonders to keep the meta healthier than it's ever been).

I'm sure I'm gonna get called a "GW White Knight" or an apologist or something else, but I don't care. I still enjoy the game, I still love the models, and I've been pretty happy with how GW has been handling balance issues in the last few years. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

Yeah I'm right with you. GW dropped the ball on this one by including a bunch of game mechanics already proven to be bad, and they should have known better. I suspect this book is a result of them not wanting to put a brand new faction through the same amount of external playtesting as other codexes; they prioritised leak security over game balance. It's yet another nail in the coffin of their flawed printed rules business model, which I really hope will be addressed in 10th.

However at the same time anyone buying this codex on release knew precisely what it was. The leaked PDF and discussion around it has been out for some time, and there were plenty of plainly worded reviews out for when pre-orders opened. It was never a realistic proposition for most people to assemble all a full 2000pt competitive Votann list and get substantial use of it before the next Chapter Approved or FAQ. The points listed in the codex were always going to be revised and anyone pearl-clutching over these changes is just being dishonest with themselves.

tneva82 wrote:

Because army was provenly op as hell to the effect it was leading to bans which hurts their sales.

Which events banned the codex for "being provenly OP"?

 NAVARRO wrote:
They take many months to do these codexes right? How did they managed to rebalance the full codex with so many points changes, in just a few days?

Something something book printing.

Asenion wrote:


They already sold out on pre-orders, this wasn't about sales. And most players do not play in tournaments.

Not that it matters to me. Check my list, I play Thurian with Uthar. I'm actually one of the least effected and didn't spend a dime, I'm one of the few that gets to keep their Auto-6s.

Loyal customers who spent a lot of hard earned money? Well I hope they plan on playing Thurian.Lol.

Ah yes. GW only wants to sell the box. They don't want to sell the solo boxes at all. LOL. Yeah right. Think for a second...

Do you REALLY think votann sales will be only the launch set? There is never going to be land fortress on sale? No berserkers on sale? All GW ever wanted to sell was launch box and that's it?

ROFLMAO! That's so stupid idea that words fail me.

OF COURSE THEY CARE ABOUT SALES OF THE KITS THEY HAVE TO RELEASE STILL!!! So banning army hurting sales of those worry GW a lot.

 NAVARRO wrote:
They take many months to do these codexes right? How did they managed to rebalance the full codex with so many points changes, in just a few days?

Finger + tongue x air = points value.

I'd argue they haven't given they just rendered the rail weapons special rule pretty much redundant, suggests they didn't think it through to completion.

 NAVARRO wrote:
They take many months to do these codexes right? How did they managed to rebalance the full codex with so many points changes, in just a few days?

By having nerfs ready in advance.

tneva82 wrote:

Asenion wrote:


They already sold out on pre-orders, this wasn't about sales. And most players do not play in tournaments.

Not that it matters to me. Check my list, I play Thurian with Uthar. I'm actually one of the least effected and didn't spend a dime, I'm one of the few that gets to keep their Auto-6s.

Loyal customers who spent a lot of hard earned money? Well I hope they plan on playing Thurian.Lol.

Ah yes. GW only wants to sell the box. They don't want to sell the solo boxes at all. LOL. Yeah right. Think for a second...

Do you REALLY think votann sales will be only the launch set? There is never going to be land fortress on sale? No berserkers on sale? All GW ever wanted to sell was launch box and that's it?

ROFLMAO! That's so stupid idea that words fail me.

OF COURSE THEY CARE ABOUT SALES OF THE KITS THEY HAVE TO RELEASE STILL!!! So banning army hurting sales of those worry GW a lot.

You're missing the point. Most buyers won't be going to anywhere they'd be "banned", you're talking about the smaller chunk of the gaming population who attend big events.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:
Maybe they'll get it right when they release Squat 2.0s

This is a very good point. A new Votaan Codex with the other half of their miniature range is only 12-18 months away, so maybe they'll get that one right.

That is the main reason I didn't buy into this release. I know, it tells GW I am not interested, but I'm not interested in a broken-on-release codex, with another along all too soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Necros wrote:
If you use the Warhammer app, does everything get updated automagically or do I still have go and track down all the FAQs?

From the linked article:
"These changes will appear in the official Warhammer 40,000 app shortly, while you can download the update here:"

We dont really need a sixth thread on the squats.