Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Nurgle needs serious help that can't come from just points tweaks unfortunately.

They do no damage and aren't resilient. Their one identity seems to be ways to mess with enemy obsec/auras, but that isn't enough to carry a subfaction.

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Nurgle needs serious help that can't come from just points tweaks unfortunately.

They do no damage and aren't resilient. Their one identity seems to be ways to mess with enemy obsec/auras, but that isn't enough to carry a subfaction.

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

What meta do you play in that a slow moving unit with no guns is in anyway decent? T5 means jack all, ask orks how that worked out for them. 2W is nice except that the current meta involves a bunch of 2D weapons. You also conveniently forgot that those attacks are hitting on 4+, you know, perfect for a unit that only has melee attacks.

Nurgle as an army just does not work at the most basic levels. They have no real strengths and they are average at some things and bad at others, they do nothing better than other armies.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Nurgle needs serious help that can't come from just points tweaks unfortunately.

They do no damage and aren't resilient. Their one identity seems to be ways to mess with enemy obsec/auras, but that isn't enough to carry a subfaction.

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

What meta do you play in that a slow moving unit with no guns is in anyway decent? T5 means jack all, ask orks how that worked out for them. 2W is nice except that the current meta involves a bunch of 2D weapons. You also conveniently forgot that those attacks are hitting on 4+, you know, perfect for a unit that only has melee attacks.

Nurgle as an army just does not work at the most basic levels. They have no real strengths and they are average at some things and bad at others, they do nothing better than other armies.

Wa Masters 2022 11/26/2022 - 6 rounds, 49 players
1st W6 L0 D0 Jordan Berresford Leagues of Votann
HEARTHKYN WARRIORS M 5"

You know that Poxwalkers are a Deathguard staple right? Are you a GW game designer?

 vict0988 wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Nurgle needs serious help that can't come from just points tweaks unfortunately.

They do no damage and aren't resilient. Their one identity seems to be ways to mess with enemy obsec/auras, but that isn't enough to carry a subfaction.

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

What meta do you play in that a slow moving unit with no guns is in anyway decent? T5 means jack all, ask orks how that worked out for them. 2W is nice except that the current meta involves a bunch of 2D weapons. You also conveniently forgot that those attacks are hitting on 4+, you know, perfect for a unit that only has melee attacks.

Nurgle as an army just does not work at the most basic levels. They have no real strengths and they are average at some things and bad at others, they do nothing better than other armies.

Wa Masters 2022 11/26/2022 - 6 rounds, 49 players
1st W6 L0 D0 Jordan Berresford Leagues of Votann
HEARTHKYN WARRIORS M 5"

You know that Poxwalkers are a Deathguard staple right? Are you a GW game designer?

Poxwalkers are a third the cost for a 10-man squad, it should be noted.
And what are the Poxwalkers taken FOR? Are they there to do damage, or just to clog up the board?

If you're going to post random competitive results then by all means post some well performing Chaos Daemons lists that are using any Nurgle units whatsoever.

You are the first person I've ever seen who actually thinks the Nurgle side of things is somehow tanky (outside of Beasts) or does any kind of relevant damage.

@Bosskelot damage and durability is relative to the pts cost of the unit, something you and arbiter don't understand. You know that rules bloat is ruining the game for tonnes of people right? What is the point of units having a 2+ save or T8 when you're going to say that a unit with AP-2 and auto-wounds on 6s has an irrelevant amount of damage?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Poxwalkers are a third the cost for a 10-man squad, it should be noted.

So what you're saying is that Plague Bearers would be good or even OP at the right cost? Now we know you don't work for GW.

So, again, please post some competitive lists that are using Plaguebearers.

 vict0988 wrote:
@Bosskelot damage and durability is relative to the pts cost of the unit, something you and arbiter don't understand. You know that rules bloat is ruining the game for tonnes of people right? What is the point of units having a 2+ save or T8 when you're going to say that a unit with AP-2 and auto-wounds on 6s has an irrelevant amount of damage?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Poxwalkers are a third the cost for a 10-man squad, it should be noted.

So what you're saying is that Plague Bearers would be good or even OP at the right cost? Now we know you don't work for GW.

To the end of the post, yes. But points alone can only do so much. They can make just about anything OP, but actually balanced is much trickier.

To the former, a squad of 10 Plaguebearers does the following to a T8 3+ target, like a Knight:
21 attacks
21/3 or 7 hits, 21/6 wounds
7/6 wounds plus the auto, for 28/6 or 14/3 wounds
28/9 failed saves, for 3.11 damage

That's 150 points to do 3 wounds to a Knight in melee.

You CAN buff them... But most buffs are targeted, excepting RR1s to-wound and to-hit. (There is the +1 to-hit, tablewide, for 4 Warp Storm Points, and +1 AP against vehicles only tablewide for 2 Warp Storm Points, at least.)

So, if we buff-stack as much as we can, we can get three squads to have +1 Damage on wound rolls of 6 (Poxbringer targeted buff), one squad having +1 Damage in general (Virulent Blessing psychic power), everyone +1 to-hit (Warp Storm, 4 points), +1 AP against Vehicles (which a Knight is), and finally RR1s to-hit and -wound.

Maximum Buff Squad (D2 base, +1 Damage on 6s to-wound, hitting on 3+, AP-3, RR1s to-hit and -wound) does 6.81 damage from autowounds and 5.95 from regular wounds.
Moderate Buff Squads (D1 base, +1 Damage on 6s to-wound, hitting on a 3+, AP-3, RR1s to-hit and -wound) do 3.40 damage from autowounds and 3.97 from regular wounds. There are two of these.

So, for only 450 points of Plaguebearers, 140 points of Daemon Prince, 270 points of Poxbringers, and enough luck to get 6 Warp Storm Points (less than 15% of the time, by the way) you can bop ONE Knight! Oh, but you can't Deepstrike anything part of this combo except the Prince-the rest of them need to be on the battlefield in the Command Phase to do their thing.

Strictly speaking, the Prince might be overkill. They do get 23.57 damage against a Knight without RR1s to-hit. So that's only 720 points of melee units at full strength needed to kill a Knight.

I think its fair to say power is a function of points - but points alone doesn't make things interesting.

So yes, you could easily make Plaguebearers, Beasts and Drones overpowered by making them very cheap for what you get. But its harder to make them balanced as a fun interactive army. Which requires a bit more than just being a mathematically efficient blob that gets pushed on to objectives. (Imo anyway - there are clearly people who enjoy a wrack spam list - which admittedly is arguably more interactive than massed plaguebearers.)

And unfortunately you are tied up in countless ways - because you have Nurgle Daemons as strictly Nurgle Daemons, Nurgle Daemons as part of a wider Daemons force, and then a whole range of potential Chaos/Nurgle builds. Which is why soup may be fun/fluffy - but isn't great of balance/niche personality.

 vict0988 wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Nurgle needs serious help that can't come from just points tweaks unfortunately.

They do no damage and aren't resilient. Their one identity seems to be ways to mess with enemy obsec/auras, but that isn't enough to carry a subfaction.

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

What meta do you play in that a slow moving unit with no guns is in anyway decent? T5 means jack all, ask orks how that worked out for them. 2W is nice except that the current meta involves a bunch of 2D weapons. You also conveniently forgot that those attacks are hitting on 4+, you know, perfect for a unit that only has melee attacks.

Nurgle as an army just does not work at the most basic levels. They have no real strengths and they are average at some things and bad at others, they do nothing better than other armies.

Wa Masters 2022 11/26/2022 - 6 rounds, 49 players
1st W6 L0 D0 Jordan Berresford Leagues of Votann
HEARTHKYN WARRIORS M 5"

You know that Poxwalkers are a Deathguard staple right? Are you a GW game designer?

I can not have a conversation with someone who is so blatantly and intentionally missing the point. I talk about how bad Plaguebearers are and you bring up Hearthkyn as if to say I am wrong because Hearthkyn have the same movement stat? Completely disregard the part where I talk about the lack of any ranged attacks and hitting on 4+ in melee which is where your only damage output comes from.

Poxwalkers work in Deathguard because they are cheap bodies to throw at objectives. Plaguebearers would be broken beyond belief if they cost the same as Poxwalkers but they don't. The issue at hand is the fact that there is no point value where Plaguebearers could be balanced. They are either going to cost more per wound than is worth taking or they are going to cost less per wound than is balanced. They bring nothing at all to the table other than their mere existence and that is the problem. They need some sort of change at a fundamental level in order for them to be a viable unit, most Nurgle units fall into this category. Nurgle used to be about resilience and hard to move units, GW in their infinite wisdom decided that high toughness=resilience even when the fundamental nature of 9th edition means that toughness's between 5-7 pretty much do nothing. The weapons that are most commonly encountered are S4 or S8+; S10+ weapons that you would shoot at infantry are so few and far between that I don't think they have a place in this conversation.

 vict0988 wrote:

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

WAIT

wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait

Are you really saying plaguebearers are good?

and youre the one calling us "non competitive casuals"?????

Tyel wrote:
I think its fair to say power is a function of points - but points alone doesn't make things interesting.

I think fluffy datasheets without bloated rules are interesting. When someone says that Plaguebearers with power axes lack damage I start wondering whether they need to go to the hospital.

 JNAProductions wrote:
...points alone can only do so much. They can make just about anything OP, but actually balanced is much trickier.

Trickier relative to what? Did Armour of Contempt or Hammer of the Emperor make its beneficiaries balanced? If 13 pt Plaguebearers are terrible then 12 pt Plaguebearers aren't going to be overpowered. If 10 pt Plaguebearers are overpowered then 11 pt Plaguebearers aren't going to be terrible. The only time balance might sit on such a knife edge is for units costing 2-6 pts.

 Bosskelot wrote:
So, again, please post some competitive lists that are using Plaguebearers.

You can find them yourself, tonnes of tournaments were topped with Daemons in 8th and taking a big blob of Plaguebearers was standard for most of it, swarms were also very popular.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

WAIT

wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait

Are you really saying plaguebearers are good?

and youre the one calling us "non competitive casuals"?????

Did my post say that Plaguebearers were good? I am a casual player. At some point you're going to cross a line where I don't feel bad about insulting you, even if I haven't just come out of a traffic accident.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Nurgle needs serious help that can't come from just points tweaks unfortunately.

They do no damage and aren't resilient. Their one identity seems to be ways to mess with enemy obsec/auras, but that isn't enough to carry a subfaction.

Plague Bearers have 2W T5 and 2A AP-2, you're out of your mind.

What meta do you play in that a slow moving unit with no guns is in anyway decent? T5 means jack all, ask orks how that worked out for them. 2W is nice except that the current meta involves a bunch of 2D weapons. You also conveniently forgot that those attacks are hitting on 4+, you know, perfect for a unit that only has melee attacks.

Nurgle as an army just does not work at the most basic levels. They have no real strengths and they are average at some things and bad at others, they do nothing better than other armies.

Wa Masters 2022 11/26/2022 - 6 rounds, 49 players
1st W6 L0 D0 Jordan Berresford Leagues of Votann
HEARTHKYN WARRIORS M 5"

You know that Poxwalkers are a Deathguard staple right? Are you a GW game designer?

I can not have a conversation with someone who is so blatantly and intentionally missing the point.

I talk about how bad Plaguebearers are and you bring up Hearthkyn as if to say I am wrong because Hearthkyn have the same movement stat?

If you wanted to say that Plaguebearers are bad, then why did you say slow-moving units without guns can't be in any way decent? You're still not getting it when you say Orks aren't good either.

Completely disregard the part where I talk about the lack of any ranged attacks and hitting on 4+ in melee which is where your only damage output comes from.

Poxwalkers work in Deathguard...

You're defeating your own argument.

Poxwalkers work in Deathguard because they are cheap bodies to throw at objectives.

So any model can matter if it is cheap enough? Whether it is M5" or M20", T3 or T10.

Plaguebearers would be broken beyond belief if they cost the same as Poxwalkers but they don't.

Poxwalkers don't have power axes or T5. They shouldn't cost the same. There are still a lot of point values between 5 and 15.

The issue at hand is the fact that there is no point value where Plaguebearers could be balanced.

That's right not one single point value, there is a point range of about 2 where Plaguebearers are balanced. Maybe it's 8-9 or 13-14. If I was GW I'd change them to 12 pts, but I would also playtest them 6 times at 12 pts to make sure they aren't OP at that cost.

GW in their infinite wisdom decided that high toughness=resilience even when the fundamental nature of 9th edition means that toughness's between 5-7 pretty much do nothing.

And thus Arbiter, in their infinite wisdom determined that Plaguebearers must be T8.

I'm mostly curious as to how a thread about how Leagues of Votann got nerfed prematurely has gotten derailed to the point of arguing the viability of Plaguebearers...

In a (probably) vain attempt to get the thread back on track, I'd say early tournament results have shown that in fact Votann were not nerfed prematurely. At all. We'd be dealing with a toxic meta the likes of which haven't been seen since the dark days of 8th edition Iron Hands if not for the nerfs. Votann with the nerfs are still a pretty strong army, and might actually start posting stronger results once more top players start trying them out and really finding the optimal min/max builds.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
So, again, please post some competitive lists that are using Plaguebearers.

You can find them yourself, tonnes of tournaments were topped with Daemons in 8th and taking a big blob of Plaguebearers was standard for most of it, swarms were also very popular.

That was 8th edition. With 8th edition Plaguebearers. Who were a VASTLY different beast from their current iteration.

@ZergSmasher whether Votann were nerfed prematurely depends on how they fare in the meta, Daemons of Chaos flamers are popular in the meta, Daemons of Chaos Nurgle units are unpopular in the meta, Daemons of Chaos Nurgle units need stat changes, rule changes or pts changes.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
So, again, please post some competitive lists that are using Plaguebearers.

You can find them yourself, tonnes of tournaments were topped with Daemons in 8th and taking a big blob of Plaguebearers was standard for most of it, swarms were also very popular.

That was 8th edition. With 8th edition Plaguebearers. Who were a VASTLY different beast from their current iteration.

I thought it'd be a funnier response than just saying "I never said Plaguebearers are competitive, I simply object to stat creep and bloat".

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I'm mostly curious as to how a thread about how Leagues of Votann got nerfed prematurely has gotten derailed to the point of arguing the viability of Plaguebearers...

In a (probably) vain attempt to get the thread back on track, I'd say early tournament results have shown that in fact Votann were not nerfed prematurely. At all. We'd be dealing with a toxic meta the likes of which haven't been seen since the dark days of 8th edition Iron Hands if not for the nerfs. Votann with the nerfs are still a pretty strong army, and might actually start posting stronger results once more top players start trying them out and really finding the optimal min/max builds.

They were not nerfed prematurely, agreed. The spiralling issue here is that there was numerous vocal public outcry about it hammering on until GW acted, yet currently nobody is doing the same for those 70% wr tzeentch lists, or nids when they got up past 70% briefly etc.

Apparently flamers are so obviously broken and due for a nerf that everyone is happy for them to continue as is until nerfed. Then people discussed it was a unit not a book that was a problem which is the difference and here we are at someone trying to justify plaguebearers.

Every post on flamers I have seen has been that they where powerful, and need dealing with.

What GW does with that info is up to them.
This seems like this weird, everything should be discussed even when there isn’t much to discuss.

The Votann rule had huge implications, the flamers are a single unit. That has far less impact on the game as a whole.

Dudeface wrote:
70% wr tzeentch lists

Source?

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
70% wr tzeentch lists

Source?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/01/warhammer-40000-metawatch-2022-in-review-12-codexes-4-dataslates-2-mission-packs-and-one-new-army/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=metawatch&utm_content=warcryroster03122022&fbclid=IwAR3PTQ8W7gpWG_O8G4bCayEU2U1MZNkXR7ci2E-PI5-yGDHpCz4NPxhctmA

 vict0988 wrote:

Wa Masters 2022 11/26/2022 - 6 rounds, 49 players
1st W6 L0 D0 Jordan Berresford Leagues of Votann
HEARTHKYN WARRIORS M 5"

You know that Poxwalkers are a Deathguard staple right? Are you a GW game designer?

That is like saying BA place in w40k events, because incursors exist

Apple fox wrote:
Every post on flamers I have seen has been that they where powerful, and need dealing with.

What GW does with that info is up to them.
This seems like this weird, everything should be discussed even when there isn’t much to discuss.

The Votann rule had huge implications, the flamers are a single unit. That has far less impact on the game as a whole.

How? When a faction can punch up to 70% wr off the back of 1 unit, why is that less of a problem? It's just weird people are contented to be steam rolled by armies containing a problem unit but a army with a problem rule requires full protest. But its clear that the bias in all this is that people are scared of new unknown stuff but happy enough with existing models getting a spell in the sun.

Dudeface wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Every post on flamers I have seen has been that they where powerful, and need dealing with.

What GW does with that info is up to them.
This seems like this weird, everything should be discussed even when there isn’t much to discuss.

The Votann rule had huge implications, the flamers are a single unit. That has far less impact on the game as a whole.

How? When a faction can punch up to 70% wr off the back of 1 unit, why is that less of a problem? It's just weird people are contented to be steam rolled by armies containing a problem unit but a army with a problem rule requires full protest. But its clear that the bias in all this is that people are scared of new unknown stuff but happy enough with existing models getting a spell in the sun.

But people have voiced it as a problem, GW seems aware it is a issue. Most players accept nerfs are coming somewhere.

A whole army with a potential troubling mechanics is worse than a single unit, since it’s much easier to deal with a single unit in that dropping it, only running a single one. Or even running the other 3 parts of the codex.
What exactly should people be saying specifically about this unit, and the faction is apart off, maybe you should start a thread about it and see what people have to think about and discuss.

If not trying to troll... Then use the reddit stats (way more games and no suspicion that a GW employee is trying to maniuplate to push an agenda).

Daemons (59 / 56), TSons (56 / 52), CSM (53 / 49) and Chaos (52 / 50) aren't running at a 70% win rate, instead their 1 week win rate was the first number in the brackets and their 6 week win rate was the second number (I used the highest placed eligible CSM sub faction to help the numbers be higher for them).

The Flamers need nerfing, the Codex came out Sept 22, if they get nerfed Jan 23 that is reasonably fast for GW.

I can see the argument for an earlier nerf than that because they are the only unit that needs a nerf (takes a single line in a FAQ to fix).

I can see the argument for waiting to nerf because they aren't the best faction in the game (3rd in the 1 week behind Votann and Harlequins / joint 2nd in the 6 week with Tyranids behind Harlequins) and because they want to get data to work out what to buff in the faction.

Bigger question is why aren't they nerfing Harlequins and Tyranids faster and when do we get round two of the Votann nerfs? Harlies came out March 2022 and have been too good ever since, Tyrands April 2022 and have also been too good ever since (and were too good pre codex with Crusher Stampede).

EightFoldPath wrote:
If not trying to troll... Then use the reddit stats (way more games and no suspicion that a GW employee is trying to maniuplate to push an agenda).

Daemons (59 / 56), TSons (56 / 52), CSM (53 / 49) and Chaos (52 / 50) aren't running at a 70% win rate, instead their 1 week win rate was the first number in the brackets and their 6 week win rate was the second number (I used the highest placed eligible CSM sub faction to help the numbers be higher for them).

The Flamers need nerfing, the Codex came out Sept 22, if they get nerfed Jan 23 that is reasonably fast for GW.

I can see the argument for an earlier nerf than that because they are the only unit that needs a nerf (takes a single line in a FAQ to fix).

I can see the argument for waiting to nerf because they aren't the best faction in the game (3rd in the 1 week behind Votann and Harlequins / joint 2nd in the 6 week with Tyranids behind Harlequins) and because they want to get data to work out what to buff in the faction.

Bigger question is why aren't they nerfing Harlequins and Tyranids faster and when do we get round two of the Votann nerfs? Harlies came out March 2022 and have been too good ever since, Tyrands April 2022 and have also been too good ever since (and were too good pre codex with Crusher Stampede).

Because there aren't massive threads and rants from players demanding they're banned and encouraging people not to buy them unlike votann.

LoV are a new faction, meanwhile you are decades too late to demand people to not buy Tyranids.

And there have been massive rants and calls for nerfs, just not here because Dakka isn't a competitive focused community (I mean we don't even have thread for weekly tournament results).

 Tyran wrote:
LoV are a new faction, meanwhile you are decades too late to demand people to not buy Tyranids.

And there have been massive rants and calls for nerfs, just not here because Dakka isn't a competitive focused community (I mean we don't even have thread for weekly tournament results).

I can vaguely accept Dakka isn't that competitive - but its not stopped us collectively whinging about things before.
I'm not sure the average player ever saw a 90 point Voidweaver shoot in anger - but the professional scene was up in arms demanding nerfs. Was GW going to fix it? Yes. Did they need to fix it *now* as it was "ruining the tournament scene" - also apparently yes. 90 point Voidweavers were with us for about 5 weekends. Compare that with say: https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-and-my-axe/

It just seems to be "eh, Flamers are good, but what are you gonna do?"

If we are using Reddit's figures, we get Daemons had a 58.6% win rate last weekend (102 wins from 174 games) - and made up 17% of the top 5 places. Thousand Sons had a 56.4% win rate. (61/108). Its pretty clear "flamer meta" is pushing down various factions that would normally be thought of as competitive/good.

But then Votann got a 62% win rate. So there's a suggestion that even with these seemingly dramatic points hikes, further tweaks will be needed.
Almost makes me wish they hadn't done it. We'll never know if pre-nerf Squats would be running an 80%+ win rate in the wild.

The big question regarding Votann is how the numbers will be when more people start fielding them in tournaments. Currently the numbers are propped by the hardcores who slap 3 paints and some tufts and call it a day.

But overall I would agree with the assessment that Votann were "not" nerfed prematurely.

Dudeface wrote:

How? When a faction can punch up to 70% wr off the back of 1 unit, why is that less of a problem? It's just weird people are contented to be steam rolled by armies containing a problem unit but a army with a problem rule requires full protest. But its clear that the bias in all this is that people are scared of new unknown stuff but happy enough with existing models getting a spell in the sun.

It's less of a problem because you appear to be stats illiterate.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/01/warhammer-40000-metawatch-2022-in-review-12-codexes-4-dataslates-2-mission-packs-and-one-new-army/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=metawatch&utm_content=warcryroster03122022&fbclid=IwAR3PTQ8W7gpWG_O8G4bCayEU2U1MZNkXR7ci2E-PI5-yGDHpCz4NPxhctmA

This data you're desperately clinging onto in the hopes to not make a fool of yourself? It's completely worthless.

First of all, what the hell does "Tzeentch" mean in this context? I can't find a single source for what that actually means. Is it Chaos Daemons going mono-Tzeentch? I kind of doubt it, given that no other faction save the Space Marines have subfactions listed separately. Which leads me to believe that it's most likely Thousand Sons souping in a detachment of Flamers. If this is the case then your assertion that a singular faction is punching up to 70% off the back of one unit is false because it is in fact two separate armies synergizing to reach that win rate.

But that isn't really why this data (and, by extension, your argument) is completely worthless.

There isn't a single sample size given for any of GW's data. This so-called Tzeentch army, how many games are being represented? 1,000? 100? Ten? Who can say when GW doesn't appear to want to tell us.

Luckily other state sites exist yet none of them seem to corroborate the idea that Tzeentch win rates are at 70%.

So why ban Chaos Daemons again? They aren't even the strongest army in the game despite your whining.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

How? When a faction can punch up to 70% wr off the back of 1 unit, why is that less of a problem? It's just weird people are contented to be steam rolled by armies containing a problem unit but a army with a problem rule requires full protest. But its clear that the bias in all this is that people are scared of new unknown stuff but happy enough with existing models getting a spell in the sun.

It's less of a problem because you appear to be stats illiterate.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/01/warhammer-40000-metawatch-2022-in-review-12-codexes-4-dataslates-2-mission-packs-and-one-new-army/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=metawatch&utm_content=warcryroster03122022&fbclid=IwAR3PTQ8W7gpWG_O8G4bCayEU2U1MZNkXR7ci2E-PI5-yGDHpCz4NPxhctmA

This data you're desperately clinging onto in the hopes to not make a fool of yourself? It's completely worthless.

First of all, what the hell does "Tzeentch" mean in this context? I can't find a single source for what that actually means. Is it Chaos Daemons going mono-Tzeentch? I kind of doubt it, given that no other faction save the Space Marines have subfactions listed separately. Which leads me to believe that it's most likely Thousand Sons souping in a detachment of Flamers. If this is the case then your assertion that a singular faction is punching up to 70% off the back of one unit is false because it is in fact two separate armies synergizing to reach that win rate.

But that isn't really why this data (and, by extension, your argument) is completely worthless.

There isn't a single sample size given for any of GW's data. This so-called Tzeentch army, how many games are being represented? 1,000? 100? Ten? Who can say when GW doesn't appear to want to tell us.

Luckily other state sites exist yet none of them seem to corroborate the idea that Tzeentch win rates are at 70%.

So why ban Chaos Daemons again? They aren't even the strongest army in the game despite your whining.

So because you don't understand their data, and to be fair nobody else does, I'm statistically illiterate? Literally the only thing you can base that off is a singular bar chart where contrary to your assertion I can read that one bar is sat at 70%.

What you're questioning and likely correct about is the inability to verify their data, we don't know how it's grouped. What it does show from a lot of recent data is that flamers, singularly are dragging a different barely 50% faction up to much higher win rates.

The fact that a single unit can punch up the winrate of multiple armies is more of a disturbance than most other releases have managed. That unit is sat in the daemons codex, ergo the daemons codex is causing a skew/imbalance in the meta.

But please get angry, throw insults and continually fail to grasp a concept that isn't a linear trend.

Edit: to help with your reading, in the last month daemons are the 2nd highest winrate assuming you ignore the outlier that is forces of the hive mind. Interestingly Votann are 45%, thousand sons are 48%.

https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#GbF

The problem with you data from Goonhammer Dudeface is that if you account for the dates for when the kits for their codex fully released there is an insignificant amount of data on Goonhammer. The kits released on November 5th so we haven't really had the time to get a great picture of how LoV are going to succeed or fail. I definitely believe that the nerfs to LoV were not premature, it is more appalling that what ever passes for play testing at GW let the codex through as it was. Even going into tinfoil hat territory where GW's new release are purposely OP, the old rules for grudge tokens were way out of line. As someone who has started collecting LoV on top of all my other armies I still think that the way the tokens interact with the game are terrible design but the army as a whole doesn't seem too over the top due to their low number of shots in general.

Daemons on the other hand are as a codex in a terrible place, very similar to where Tyranids were in 6th/7th, where a single unit is skewing the army so badly that it is hard to say how the army is performing. How do we have a conversation about any army when you have such a disruptive unit that everyone agrees is an issue. Once Flamers take a hit we can start to really have a conversation about Daemons as a whole, but much like LoV it doesn't take a great deal of play testing to know that Nurgle is terrible. That is why there isn't much conversation about Daemons - there isn't much to say, we already know most of the outliers one way or another so we need those taken care of before we can see how the army performs as a whole.