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.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

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

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

I mean, that's literally what I said.

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

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

 kodos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Dysartes wrote:

Whatever happened to German players liking a challenge?

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

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

 Dysartes wrote:

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

Spoiler:

Whatever happened to German players liking a challenge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed - please dont spam the forum - ingtær.

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

Karol wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

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

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

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

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

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

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

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

Grudges for ward i suppose.

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

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

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

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

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

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

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

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

Karol wrote:

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

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

ah so it comes down to school like stuff.

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

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

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Amishprn86 wrote:


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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karol wrote:

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

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

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

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

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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