Switch Theme:

League of Votaan Problem Model  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Dysartes wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
You can't "git gud" to beat Votann. They're that broken.

Votann is also seemingly worse than Nids or Harlequins. So it makes sense to ban them first. If the community receives this ban well, think about banning something else.

You calling it cowardice just makes it seem like you're salty you won't get some unearned wins with the new book. I know people who are 3d printing Hekatons to have them to beat ob people asap.

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.

As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.


Well said all round.

There's also the element of trying to prove they're OP to GW and more importantly, direct the nerfs. Bit hard to do without any formally presented play data.

Whether it was the "plan" or not but again, the intent seems to be that Votann are weaker into msu horde armies, whilst conveniently sandwiched between daemons and guard.

Ofc who knows if that might be a valid foil to them because, as per usual, people don't run then because they're not meta... until they are.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

While that could be the case, it's also true that it's possible LoV are so incredibly broken there is no challenge to overcome, there's nothing you can do in the face of how broken the rules are. I've seen this a couple of times in the past, most recently with SM 2.0 against many older armies, but also with several WH armies. We're also capable of extrapolating from other people's experiences, which means we may not have to personally play a game to know how it will turn out.

Personally, I think it's a little bit too early to declare LoV to be absolutely unbeatable. That said, it does seem their combination of rules and abilities mean the chances of "figuring things out" seem pretty low right now.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Slipspace wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

While that could be the case, it's also true that it's possible LoV are so incredibly broken there is no challenge to overcome, there's nothing you can do in the face of how broken the rules are. I've seen this a couple of times in the past, most recently with SM 2.0 against many older armies, but also with several WH armies. We're also capable of extrapolating from other people's experiences, which means we may not have to personally play a game to know how it will turn out.

Personally, I think it's a little bit too early to declare LoV to be absolutely unbeatable. That said, it does seem their combination of rules and abilities mean the chances of "figuring things out" seem pretty low right now.


Its more polarizing than massively broken, some armies will have zero problems with them, but some armies I can't see beating them at all with any type of Tac list from LoV.

   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




So were all other top armies in 8th and 9th. In generaly the top tier is at best consistent of 5-6 armies or even lists. And sometimes there is an army which is a tier to itself. The reaction to LoV is extremly childish. As if people took loans to make bets on tournament results in end of 9th, and now LoV throw a wrench in to their possibility of getting the money back.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Slipspace wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.

While that could be the case, it's also true that it's possible LoV are so incredibly broken there is no challenge to overcome, there's nothing you can do in the face of how broken the rules are. I've seen this a couple of times in the past, most recently with SM 2.0 against many older armies, but also with several WH armies. We're also capable of extrapolating from other people's experiences, which means we may not have to personally play a game to know how it will turn out.

Personally, I think it's a little bit too early to declare LoV to be absolutely unbeatable. That said, it does seem their combination of rules and abilities mean the chances of "figuring things out" seem pretty low right now.


Yes there is way. Buy votann army yourself

And GW marketing department rubs hands together.

2022 painted/bought: 681/867 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




I mean, people can still dunk on people with Votann at home and test their ability to overcome odds stacked against them.

But warhammer events over a whole weekend where people spend potentially spend months painting, if you're having to weight the enjoyment of one Votann (or Tyranid, Harlequins, etc..) player vs. two players with .... dunno, Imperial Fist and AdMech, the former is in the minority and should take a ban. Simples.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Sunny Side Up wrote:
I mean, people can still dunk on people with Votann at home and test their ability to overcome odds stacked against them.

But warhammer events over a whole weekend where people spend potentially spend months painting, if you're having to weight the enjoyment of one Votann (or Tyranid, Harlequins, etc..) player vs. two players with .... dunno, Imperial Fist and AdMech, the former is in the minority and should take a ban. Simples.


Well depends what the purpose of the event is, is it a more hobby focus event? or is it a top GT going for high points event?

   
Made in us
Paramount Plague Censer Bearer





"Git gud, and don't ban books if you haven't already" are not very convincing arguments. Since I don't play 40k anymore, and kind of just watch from the sidelines, my point of view might be a bit muddled, but if Infinity had an army released that was so strong that most other armies couldn't fight it, I feel it would deserve a ban. And if it is the second or third to be released, when the others didn't get banned? Ban it, still. Just because other things got to be overpowered doesn't mean that this does, too. Things being overpowered is generally bad, and allowing a bad thing just because bad things have happened is not a good thing. Maybe Games Workshop will learn next time? Who knows.

‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Git gud, and don't ban books if you haven't already" are not very convincing arguments.

I find banning the next best step since the consoomers keep buying all the new codices despite glaring issues with the quality and schedule of releases
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Even if they are only in the top ranks of the factions, I still think a ban is worthy due to there rules.

They ignore parts of the rules, a fair bit of it and could be very oppressive on the game itself at all levels of play.

Some of the math just swings so much, and rather simple to swing it towards the LoV that I do not think it introduces anything good to the meta for the future right now from gameplay.

Shame, as I actually like more of the models than dislike.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Dysartes wrote:

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?


Interesting. I'm sure you're totally going to be cool losing 95%+ games vs. Votann no matter what you do.

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.


It's so badly balanced that you need to ban it to send a message. If 40k was solitaire, I'd agree, it's a challenge. But you have to turn that around on Votann players - why are they so afraid of a challenge they're playing Votann?


 Dysartes wrote:
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.


It's not necessarily cowardice, given you want people to participate in their event. Moreover, if we take the idea that Votann are even worse than these other factions, then it's not cowardice, Votann was just finally over the line.

 Dysartes wrote:
As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.


If one thinks that Votann is a higher power level than the rest, no, it's not.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





Hecaton wrote:


Interesting. I'm sure you're totally going to be cool losing 95%+ games vs. Votann no matter what you do.


95%? Pssh...as a guard player, I'm cool with losing 99% of my matches (couldn't resist)

On a more relevant note though, I've seen several batreps (although not a majority) on youtube where LoV loses. My general sense is that it's typically a loss on points despite LoV dominating in kills.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




Hecaton wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?


Interesting. I'm sure you're totally going to be cool losing 95%+ games vs. Votann no matter what you do.

 Dysartes wrote:

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.


It's so badly balanced that you need to ban it to send a message. If 40k was solitaire, I'd agree, it's a challenge. But you have to turn that around on Votann players - why are they so afraid of a challenge they're playing Votann?


 Dysartes wrote:
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.


It's not necessarily cowardice, given you want people to participate in their event. Moreover, if we take the idea that Votann are even worse than these other factions, then it's not cowardice, Votann was just finally over the line.

 Dysartes wrote:
As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.


If one thinks that Votann is a higher power level than the rest, no, it's not.


But how do you know they win 95% of their games against Dysartes?

There's lots of reasons someone collects a force without "easy wins" being one of them, there's only one reason you ban a faction and it's to prevent more losses.

The point is you can't prove that Votann are "finally over the line" as there is no line to measure against and no data to plot over it. Just like everyone else clamouring for the ban, you're doing based off Internet hype and maths hammer. Yes they will need a nerf but you can't objectively show they're worse than peak DE, Admech, Nids, Tau or Custodes.
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Well true. It"s more likely 100 than 95.

2022 painted/bought: 681/867 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





I rekon for any other company, drukhari, admech, custodes, Tau and nids would have been over the line aswell tbh.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Edited for Rule 1- ingtær.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/27 18:36:31


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos






As someone that has now 3.5 R&H armies, let me tell you, it sucks.

And whilest i don't like the esthetic of the new votan my self i can understand that some people like them enough that they say, this is my army. Being then sidelined is frankly pretty sucky.

otoh we let gw get away with a lot of BS before votan and singling them out due to being the "nu" army is also an issue i think.

meanwhile however the dex is fundamentally a problematic ruleset balance wise.

Ultimatly if i had my way, we would've told gw a long time ago to cease their gak, alas the community also is part of the problem with buying nu shiny and damn the consequences, one needs to just look at WHFB and the insistence on 3000pts nothing lower, which enticed gw to pull what we called goldhänder and blood knights, which in tern killed the game of plenty.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/27 18:37:00


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Dysartes wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

They have. What's being missed in all of this, despite it being repeated a number of times, is the German ban is actually standard for pre-FAQ books.

Even if that weren't the case, if you believe not banning previous OP Codices was a mistake, continuing to make that mistake because of an appeal to tradition is stupid. I really wish people would stop bringing up the fact bans haven't happened before as some sort of justification for not doing so now. It makes no sense. Either the ban is warranted due to the power level of the army, or it isn't. You can argue about how OP a faction needs to be to deserve a ban, but "we've never done it before" is not a justification to continue making the same mistake over and over again.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

Leagues already getting hit with nerfs: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/09/29/leagues-of-votann-balance-update-a-word-from-james-workshop/

Also, looks like I was right on the money in terms of how timeline effects balance (that or GW was browsing on dakka and saw my post and said "yeah, thats a good excuse!").

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Good to see them respond quickly. Their reason for why it happened is equal parts hilarious and terrifying. It's basically saying "we keep power creeping the everloving crap out of our game and now something's gone horribly wrong. Who woulda thought?"

Pro-tip GW: maybe if you had a coherent plan at the start of an edition, and any form of rules oversight or restraint, you wouldn't have to keep doing this.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"


It is worth to note that from the way GW described their method of testing the rules for their later in edition armies, the Tyranids and Eldar were designed to coexist with armies like LoV. Yet somehow there was no planet wide call for bans of those factions, even if they were just or more broken the LoV. It is a double standard, and it will create a situation where some factions are more privilaged then others and just allowed to be broken, while others won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Some people organizing events for games with toy soldiers decided that one faction of toy soldiers would disrupt people's enjoyment of the event enough to warrant it's ban. There's a lot of discussion to be had in regards to ramifications but ultimately the logic is pretty simple.

Oddly, said organisers do not appear to have done the same for other factions which have proven to be meta-deforming within the same edition, presumably because they'd lose money by banning existing armies...

They have. What's being missed in all of this, despite it being repeated a number of times, is the German ban is actually standard for pre-FAQ books.

Even if that weren't the case, if you believe not banning previous OP Codices was a mistake, continuing to make that mistake because of an appeal to tradition is stupid. I really wish people would stop bringing up the fact bans haven't happened before as some sort of justification for not doing so now. It makes no sense. Either the ban is warranted due to the power level of the army, or it isn't. You can argue about how OP a faction needs to be to deserve a ban, but "we've never done it before" is not a justification to continue making the same mistake over and over again.


There is a difference between being told that faciton X maybe broken, but you have to wait for the meta to adjust and GW to release the FAQ for it. And being told that faction Y breaks the game and there for should not be played against until GW nerfs it. The changes done to LoV are substential, especialy for a slow army that was designed to work like a semi horde. The changes made to eldar or tyranids, in reaction to their books weren't as sever, and most of all didn't impact the the armies as much. Even with points hikes Leviathan for tyranids is still the way to go for example.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/29 12:38:36


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Servoarm Flailing Magos






FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Called it. To the person(s) saying bans don't work, here is a literal set of nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been released yet. Just the threat of a ban to their new release spurred GW into action.

BTW, love the "How did this happen" part.

It's like that two panel meme where the host shoots the person, then asks the audience, "How did this happen?"


Except these bans aren't a new thing.

It's probably more the constant doomposting in every single 40k environment online that made them do that change
   
Made in ca
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon






To be honest, I don't think any "early release" box faction should be allowed at tournaments. I don't think you should be allowed to bring a book to events until it's readily available for everyone. Regardless of strength. It's just not fair for everyone when there isn't access.

Wolfspear's 2k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:

There is a difference between being told that faciton X maybe broken, but you have to wait for the meta to adjust and GW to release the FAQ for it. And being told that faction Y breaks the game and there for should not be played against until GW nerfs it. The changes done to LoV are substential, especialy for a slow army that was designed to work like a semi horde. The changes made to eldar or tyranids, in reaction to their books weren't as sever, and most of all didn't impact the the armies as much. Even with points hikes Leviathan for tyranids is still the way to go for example.

Karol, for the millionth time, the historical brokenness of other factions is irrelevant to the question of whether LoV need nerfs now. Plenty of people will argue Nids probably still need nerfs to tone them down. Either the LoV book is too powerful, or it isn't. Refusing to take remedial actions because mistakes were made in the past is the dumbest reason to do something I can think of.

BTW, anyone else think Adam and Eddie's statement sounded a little bit like hostages forced to read a confession?
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Slipspace wrote:
Karol wrote:

There is a difference between being told that faciton X maybe broken, but you have to wait for the meta to adjust and GW to release the FAQ for it. And being told that faction Y breaks the game and there for should not be played against until GW nerfs it. The changes done to LoV are substential, especialy for a slow army that was designed to work like a semi horde. The changes made to eldar or tyranids, in reaction to their books weren't as sever, and most of all didn't impact the the armies as much. Even with points hikes Leviathan for tyranids is still the way to go for example.

Karol, for the millionth time, the historical brokenness of other factions is irrelevant to the question of whether LoV need nerfs now. Plenty of people will argue Nids probably still need nerfs to tone them down. Either the LoV book is too powerful, or it isn't. Refusing to take remedial actions because mistakes were made in the past is the dumbest reason to do something I can think of.

BTW, anyone else think Adam and Eddie's statement sounded a little bit like hostages forced to read a confession?


Adam and Eddie are only vaguely aware that there's a game attached to the model previews that they do and think anybody engaging in the hobby beyond cooing at pretty models is a travesty. I could feel their seething rage at the gamers who necessitated them doing such a ridiculous thing.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame
https://www.youtube.com/@makethatgame
And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Slipspace 806816 11436878 wrote:
Karol, for the millionth time, the historical brokenness of other factions is irrelevant to the question of whether LoV need nerfs now. Plenty of people will argue Nids probably still need nerfs to tone them down. Either the LoV book is too powerful, or it isn't. Refusing to take remedial actions because mistakes were made in the past is the dumbest reason to do something I can think of.

BTW, anyone else think Adam and Eddie's statement sounded a little bit like hostages forced to read a confession?


But what remedy is this. Either it will not change a thing, LoV will just lose to the armies they were losing before aka those with soliter style builds and fast armies that can trade with them very efficiently, now more efficiently with LoV points hikes or it will big an impactful change and LoV will go the way of Ad Mecha. Only Ad Mecha or Orks, or even my GKs at least had those 2-3 months when they were fun to play.

The changes made are thrown in to a void. What GW should be doing is buffing armies that have 30-40% win rates or who don't have a good build for how the meta looks right now and not nerf a new army. Especialy as this is a thing they have not done since 8th ed, even the pre codex release change to SW wasn't as big as the changes done now. GW changed a core rule and hiked up the price of an entire army, do you think they have been testing this the last 2-3 week or at least checking how the codex will work with such changes in 9th and 10th ed? I think they didn't.

Or to make it simple. If the remedy can kill the patient , like it did a few others in the past, it should not be intreduced. specialy when it creates very bad precedence for the future.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Servoarm Flailing Magos






Karol wrote:


It is worth to note that from the way GW described their method of testing the rules for their later in edition armies, the Tyranids and Eldar were designed to coexist with armies like LoV. Yet somehow there was no planet wide call for bans of those factions, even if they were just or more broken the LoV. It is a double standard, and it will create a situation where some factions are more privilaged then others and just allowed to be broken, while others won't.


oh feth off.

Its not the same thing. Banning a codex that is brand new with no existing players isnt the same as banning 20+ year old codexes that people have full armies already.

Oh, and BTW, the tournaments that banned Votann already ban every new codex before they receive a FAQ, it only got blown out of proportions because of clickbait sites like shittybits
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: