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.

Currently the win rate for the faction according to Auspex Tactics is a mere 30 percent in Tournaments and Competitive Games. A balanced faction goes to 50 percent, ideally, so what happened exactly? Were the calls for nerfs backed by organized boycotts and relentless campaigns really based on sane reasoning or hysteria? I know the first handful of games shown on youtube showed Votann winning relatively easily, but was that just because people were attacking rocks with scissors or honestly because people were going by broad empirical data sets and rational analysis? To me this seems like a cautionary tale about putting too much stock in the judgment of large groups and authorities. Large groups are prone to hysteria i.e. individuals reasoning in a certain way vs groups reasoning in a certain way, and how authorities are inherently presumptuous. I'm not saying the individual is always right and the group or hierarchy are always wrong, but an objective analysis of just how badly the Community and Authorities were off (by almost 50%!) should be something everyone can learn from. At least I hope so. Otherwise it just means the whole group is incapable of self-reflection or ever admitting they are wrong, which is a really bad omen. It's kind of like the Salem Witch Trials in its level of delusion at that point.

That being said, nobody's perfect, and if everyone was it would be a boring world. At the same time, it should be noted sometimes groups of people make rash decisions based more on emotion and knee-jerk reactions then long, well-thought, rational contemplation. That's just human nature. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and I myself am hardly immune to factors such as poor judgment or emotional reaction - but I do try to learn from my mistakes, I am hoping the Community of far more experienced, superiors can do the same.

 KingGarland wrote:
To be fair this hasn't been at many official tournaments because they players were using proxied models so the numbers could be off by a bit.

Also remember that this is a brand new army and people are still getting the hang of how to use them, and which units work best. Not to mention their limited unit pool.

There also may just not be enough players of the faction to have a high win rate yet. It is just too early to tell.

That being said, while you are right in that groups can make bad decisions and GW is certainly prone to it as well, I don't think this is the case here. While I can't really say anything about the points, I think toning down judgement tokens was the correct decision. As more info comes out GW may reverse all they have done like they did with the Ad Mech.

Yet their win rates in tournaments is a mere 30 percent. That's lowest tier. Even Admech and Guard which are generally considered under-powered have higher win rates,.

Also I have a problem with nerfing JT's, as they are supposed to be a buff but become a nerf. It is like if Marker Lights for Tau made units LESS accurate. It really makes no sense.

Just about any balance issue can be resolved with a change in points. A unit costs 2 times as much, 3 times as much, 4 times as much - there is a number that will balance it. The JT change made it so a feature that was supposed to benefit the Votann actually made tjem weaker which makes no sense and even removes the fun element. Why go for JT's if all they do is nerf your own weaoon? It seened like a lazy move, It is like if "Disguistingly Resulient" made some Nurgle Units more prone to damage - it makes no sense and undermines the faction as a whole.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
How could we have comprehensive tournament data for an army that only goes fully on pre-order tomorrow? Yeeeehhhh......it's everyone else that jumped the gun on this one.......

Then why make a judgment at all? If it's untested, why not wait and see instead of deciding before it is even given a real test? That suggests bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingGarland wrote:
To be fair this hasn't been at many official tournaments because they players were using proxied models so the numbers could be off by a bit.

Also remember that this is a brand new army and people are still getting the hang of how to use them, and which units work best. Not to mention their limited unit pool.

There also may just not be enough players of the faction to have a high win rate yet. It is just too early to tell.

That being said, while you are right in that groups can make bad decisions and GW is certainly prone to it as well, I don't think this is the case here. While I can't really say anything about the points, I think toning down judgement tokens was the correct decision. As more info comes out GW may reverse all they have done like they did with the Ad Mech.

But that works both ways. People will get more optimized with how they counter Votann as well.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

KingGarland wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote: How could we have comprehensive tournament data for an army that only goes fully on pre-order tomorrow? Yeeeehhhh......it's everyone else that jumped the gun on this one.......

I saw the video. It is unofficial data from private tournaments.

Right. So, not remotely enough data for a comprehensive data sample, wouldn't you agree?

Asenion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
How could we have comprehensive tournament data for an army that only goes fully on pre-order tomorrow? Yeeeehhhh......it's everyone else that jumped the gun on this one.......

Then why make a judgment at all? If it's untested, why not wait and see instead of deciding before it is even given a real test? That suggests bias.

Yes, you're correct. It's untested and we should wait for more data before making any judgment. Doing otherwise would suggest bias.

Calm down. Let the full army be released into lots of people's hands, so that they can play lots of games at lots of tournaments. Then we'll have enough data to know the actual picture. Then we can start making judgment calls.

Sure, why not? I'm just saying the calls for nerfs before even 1 tournament seems premature given what data we have available thus far. I mean a 30 percent win rate for a new faction is extremely low. Most factions start with a higher then average win rate in tournaments.

The 30% win rate is completely irrelevant because squats were playing with a very limited partial codex. None of those results have anything to do with what the real army is capable of.

Wait, so wouldn't that make the call to nerf them even more premature seeing as it was based on ZERO Tournament games? If a handful of tournament games are "too little" in terms of data sets (a completely subjective standard - unless you can tell me exactly how many tournaments it takes for the data to become relevant) then zero tournaments should be even more irrelevant.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Still too early to tell how the Leagues will perform.

The timing of the nerf was appropriate. Players would be outraged if GW switched the rules right after they built out their armies.

At least people have some confidence in the lists they use.

Translation - some data is too little to argue a nerf is bad,

But ZERO data from Tournaments is enough to decide that a nerf is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:

Wait, so wouldn't that make the call to nerf them even more premature seeing as it was based on ZERO Tournament games? If a handful of tournament games are "too little" in terms of data sets (a completely subjective standard - unless you can tell me exactly how many tournaments it takes for the data to become relevant) then zero tournaments should be even more irrelevant.

It's almost like I addressed this already:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Win rates aren't the only source of data. People did the math and it was clear that squats were way out of line in efficiency and were going to be a major problem. Playtesting games backed up this analysis. We don't need to waste a month on a completely broken meta just to prove that yes, water is in fact wet.

So the math included every single possible variable? Not one single variable was missing at all? Give me a break. If that was true you wouldn't need any testing at all - ever.

I mean anyone can cherry pick some numbers and claim "Well based on MATH I declare X faction OP!" What math is this exactly? Does it involve calculus, trigonometry, quadratic equations?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
So the math included every single possible variable? Not one single variable was missing at all? Give me a break. If that was true you wouldn't need any testing at all - ever.

I mean anyone can cherry pick some numbers and claim "Well based on MATH I declare X faction OP!" What math is this exactly? Does it involve calculus, trigonometry, quadratic equations?

You don't need to calculate every possible variable to see that squats were way out of line with the rest of the game: https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-votann-break-all-the-rules-in-warhammer-40k/

And, again, it wasn't just math. People did the math and then ran playtest games that confirmed what everyone suspected.

Even your own source admits they took a lot of short cuts in the math because there are simply too many variables to calculate everything that goes into a game:

Nor does it tell you how much the result could vary. In order to perfectly understand the distribution of outcomes you would need to calculate every possible permutation of die rolls. This can easily be thousands or hundreds of thousands of combinations. The math sucks.

So let’s be lazy instead.

https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-understanding-modifiers-and-re-rolls/

In other words your "math" is based on assumptions and cherry picking what data you want to include and exclude.

This is open to confirmation bias nine ways to Sunday. To me it seems almost comical.

The fact is even if you had an NSA Quantum Super-Computer running a host of variables I doubt the math would predict every game or balance in every possible way.

That's why play testing is critical.

Your own analogy proves it. You said we don't need a host of data to prove " water is wet". That's because we don't use math to prove that, you just go out and touch it. No math needed and any "math" claiming the opposite is worth less then a wooden nickel splintered into dust bits.

And no matter how much math you claim the data shows a 30 percent win rate in tournaments. That's based on math too.

This is based on far more data then the sets others used to call for a nerf.

You may not need a lot of data to prove water is wet, but if you're going to claim that geese can't fly I'd say a gander makes a lot more sense in terms of evidence then a single cooked bird on a stick!

I mean how low do the win rates have to be exactly? If they were 10 percent would the amount of data still be too little and made irrelevant because of "math"?

If it was 5 percent? 0 percent?

A 30 percent win rate is not some minor discrepancy, that is HALF of what should be expected from a balanced faction! Especially for a new faction.

And this is with the JTs still by and large intact ( your whole post about math was about how much JTs unbalanced the game - all that was removed was the exploding/splash 6s, that hardly accounts for a 20+% swing in the numbers).

The fact is you made a claim based on no data and now that the data is out - it doesn't count!

The Earth isn't round because the map you saw has edges!

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Ok? That's how math works. But when the error margin on your analysis is +/- 5%

And who is determining this exactly? Someone who adds or subtracts variables based on how "lazy" he or she feels at a given time?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
30% win rate (which is what I assume you mean, if squats currently have a 30% loss rate they need major nerfs) is irrelevant

Translation - Any evidence for my case counts, all the evidence against my case doesn't count.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
because that data set is not using the real codex.

What? What do you think they were using at these Tournaments - office memos?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
I can cite a 10% win rate for space marines operating on the restriction that they can only take basic captains and bolter tactical squads with no upgrades or stratagems permitted and that 10% win rate may in fact be accurate for what the crippled pseudo-army is capable of but that doesn't mean the data has anything to do with the performance of the real space marine codex.

And? Are you claiming that all these Tournaments applied these special handicaps to Votann and only Votann in this way?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

That's why play testing is critical.

Once again: people did playtest it. Their playtesting confirmed the initial impression that the codex was completely out of line.

Yes - in non-competitive games and came to conclusions often times after just 1 play test. 2 if they were feeling generous i.e. Tabletop Titans.

So like 5 play tests are sufficient to determine that the faction needs to be nerfed but 50-100 are not sufficient data sets to say a nerf is premature. That's literally what you're saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
99% of LOV players are playing in these tournaments without models for the majority of the codex. Id be shocked if it doesn't climb dramatically once people have the full range for more then a few days

I highly doubt even if Votann have an abysmal win rate after that any of these people will admit they're wrong or make the same effort to reverse their incorrect decision that they put into shoving this obvious blunder onto the rest of the Community.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

It's a hypothetical example with made up numbers in response to your claim of "BUT APPROXIMATIONS". Yes, approximations are a thing. No, approximations are not likely to be a factor when the math is so egregiously out of line with everything else.

This actually reminds me of a joke skit about "Breaking Bad" called " Making Math":

" We're making math that is 99 percent accurate!"

" Soo...that means it's wrong."

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Translation: they are literally not playing with the same codex. You can't argue that Tau are overpowered because Tyranids have a 60% win rate.

Oh so if Tyranids have a 99 percent win rate we can't say Tyranids are Over-Powered because every faction uses a different Codex.

If Orks have a 0 percent win rate we can't argue that Orks need to be buffed for the same reason. Give me a break.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
You do know that many, if not all, events are not allowing the unreleased units, right? Most of that 30% win rate is being generated by players using a partial codex, not the real codex that we will see in the near future once the full model range is out.

Granted but all your argument from "math" was primarily based on JTs being so over powered that they broke the game and JTs are still in play with a minor nerf and we aren't seeing any of this.

The hypothesis was tested - the results are the opposite of what the hypothesis predicted. In science this is know as a failed hypothesis.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Yes, and this is indisputable fact. Squats are the only faction that has some of their units banned entirely in competitive play

Nope, other new factions had similar bans at their launch and most achieved win rates well above average.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

So like 5 play tests are sufficient to determine that the faction needs to be nerfed but 50-100 are not sufficient data sets to say a nerf is premature. That's literally what you're saying.

5 playtest games can be sufficient if the faction is overpowered enough that the conclusion is obvious. If the new guard codex has 10 point Baneblades it will not take very many games to conclude the obvious: that it's really ****ing broken and needs to be fixed.

50-100 playtest games of Tau vs. space marines will not tell you anything about whether or not the Tyranid codex is overpowered.

Oh so according to that logic 1 play test can be sufficient to prove your point but 1000 play tests showing the contrary are baseless because " the conclusion is obvious."

Aecus Decimus wrote:

No, that is not the same. You are making the argument that Tyranids are overpowered because Tau have a 99% win rate, and that Orks need to be buffed because Eldar have a 0% win rate. None of your tournament win rate data is in any way relevant because very few, if any, of those games are using the real squat codex.

How did I make that point in any way? I said the win rate of Votann being low at launch is anomalous given that most other factions had a higher then normal win rate at launch. It's not a smoking gun by itself but it's a strong piece of evidence.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
The major issue with judgement tokens was with a unit that is currently banned in tournament play.

Please don't make outdated points. The rest of the Codex has been released for over a week now. You are just spreading misinformation.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Not at all true. Squats are a special case because they're an entirely new army. Other factions haven't had the same kind of partial release and have not had significant parts of the codex banned for the first month or two.

Those parts of the codex were banned because the models were not officially released by GW yet - it had nothing to do with balance. You said this in your own words -from literally earlier today:

You do know that many, if not all, events are not allowing the unreleased units, right? Most of that 30% win rate is being generated by players using a partial codex, not the real codex that we will see in the near future once the full model range is out.[

Straight from the horses mouth.

I mean it's hard to even know what to say at this point since you seem to be contradicting yourself left and right and saying outright falsehoods like "the full codex isn't out" when it's been out for over a week.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Oh so according to that logic 1 play test can be sufficient to prove your point but 1000 play tests showing the contrary are baseless because " the conclusion is obvious."

Please try to read more carefully.

One game with 10 point Baneblades can demonstrate the obvious: that 10 point Baneblades are overpowered.

1000 games of Eldar vs. Orks can not tell you anything about balance questions involving Baneblades because nobody is playing guard in those games.

Your supposed "1000 tests" do not tell you anything useful about the balance of the squat codex because the 1000 games are not being played with the squat codex.

LOL. Well I seem to be reading your points more carefully then even yourself seeing as I'm finding direct contradictions in less then a 24 hour period.

And no I don't disagree. There are too many variables. As someone else whose judgment I place higher then yours noted there are 31 factions. Each faction has dozens of models. Each model has dozens of stats. Then there are factors like terrain, strategems, mission objectives and likely other variables we cannot take into account.

This is why play-testing is critical.

Arguing that we don't need play-testing or only a tiny amount is just an argument to encourage GW to be cheap and lazy.

Likewise, as some one noted saying only a certain amount of data counts - and then we stop counting the data until you want to count the data again is a double standard.

If a month was enough time to accumulate data, then 2-3 months is enough time also. Saying "Well 2-3 months isn't enough - we need six months! Maybe even two years because of 'math' ." Is a clear double standard.

The math works both ways, the 30 percent win rate is math too and it's better because we are not just cherry-picking data which can bias the equations but looking at the overall numbers in real, competitive, officially documented games where people are seriously competing. Unless you are proposing some kind of conspiracy theory whereby the mods or players of these tournaments are rigging these numbers to intentionally make the Votann look weak ( honestly don't see how you can dispute this, though given how misinformed you seem regarding certain aspects of the issue and your general lack of efficiency (coupled with your nearly desperate, emotional tone which includes all caps and even curse words at certain points) I find it increasingly difficult to regard your analysis as objective or rational in general.

tneva82 wrote:

Asenion wrote:

And? Are you claiming that all these Tournaments applied these special handicaps to Votann and only Votann in this way?

Tournament's didn't. GW did.

In case you haven't heard....THE MODELS ONLY GOT RELEASED LIKE LAST SATURDAY! And that's for preorder...

So the votann armies in general have been missing most of the units in tournaments because YOU CANNOT BUY THEM YET!

If you disagree go to your FLGS and try to buy land fortress. Or berserkers. Try to get packet with you home. Short of store breaking their agreeements you can't do that.

Marines meanwhile have the units in codex on sale.

OMG SO MANY CAPS IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!!

In any rate Table Top Titans just played a game with the new models, as have many other youtubers since they are now at full release for much of the community, and guess what?

THEY ARE STILL LOSING PRETT BAD!!!

35 to 15!!!!!

ALL WITH THE FULL RANGE OF MODELS!!!!

So yeah I mean losing 2 to 1 with the full model range hardly supports your point - how is that for math?

tneva82 wrote:

Asenion wrote:

Granted but all your argument from "math" was primarily based on JTs being so over powered that they broke the game and JTs are still in play with a minor nerf and we aren't seeing any of this.

The hypothesis was tested - the results are the opposite of what the hypothesis predicted. In science this is know as a failed hypothesis.

Funny that. JT's being nerfed.

Gee. No wonder they aren't broken OP because they got nerfed...Funny that. Nerfs doing what they were meant to do. What? You were expecting nerfs to make them more powerful? You have funny ideas.

The nerf to JTs was minor and by and large only effected one weapon. If you read the article which apparently showed omniscient, super-human levels of "math" that us mere mortals must never question - it said the JT system was hopelessly broken, saying it increased weapon damage by 600 percent among other absurd claims.

All the nerf did was remove 6s from being automatic with JT hits. That's all. And it only effects a handful of Votann weapons. That alone should not make the win rate so abysmal compared to what we should expect - especially for a new faction unless the initial analysis was incorrect which I suspect is the case seeing as the author himself admitted to ignoring a multitude of variables and clearly had some kind of bias seeing as he was cursing with exclamation marks during his "mathematical analysis".

Tyel wrote:
I'll jump up and down for points balance then.

Much like Tyranids and Harlequins and Tau and Custodes the Votaan have combined really good army rules with datasheets which are incredibly pushed for their points compared with everything else already in 40k.

Beserks should never have been 22. But at 30 I think they are just okay, not game breaking. Their lack of speed is an issue when transports have all been nerfed.
Hearthguard at 35 were solid. At 45? I think they are overcosted and possibly moving towards even being bad.
Bikers at 35 rather than 30? Its probably a fair price rather than a pushed one.
Hekaton at 230 with the boosted Magna Rail was obscene. At 300 with the nerfed to that gun? I'm not sure it's that hot. Its probably still better than a Repulsor Executioner at the same price - but we know that sucks.
Thunderkyn seemed borderline bad before they went up 5 points, and now I'll be amazed if GW sell any.

I'm sorry but that looks entirely subjective, which is why play testing is critical. Even the most well intended person is subject to biases - such as confirmation bias. Even in science this is a problem which is why a myriad of checks like the need to be able to replicate results and the peer review process are critical.

Simply saying the points "feel" off is really questionable. Tp me a lot of Space Marine points feel off. A lot of Sister's of Battle points feel off, a lot of Chaos Demon points and strategems seem to be hopelessly unbalanced, but I recognize that could just be my biases and we don't really know until the factions are play tested in multiple games where players are purposely trying to optimize and counter each other in a serious manner.

To me the 30 percent win rate is a big red flag. More data is always welcome, and either it will confirm or disprove that assertion. I can't speculate on what the data will be, but I can note the same people saying "we need more data before we can make any sort of judgment" now were the same that called for a nerf before the faction was even released to the general public.

Again this shows clear double standards.

tneva82 wrote:
This isn't some sort of arcane divination. Take the most overpowered army in the game. Take 2 or 3 units off the table. Play out the game. Suddenly it won't do half as well.

Well that's part of the game. There is no way to make a game like Warhammer 100 percent balanced, especially for every single unit. That is why meta-data has to be the standard.

Trying to isolate and alter powerful units 1 by 1 is never going to work - there are just too many units and too many factions.

The best we can do is look at the big picture and make an analysis accordingly. If some units seem to under-perform : improve them a little. If some overperform - increase points costs slightly.

But just making sweeping changes before a faction is even released seems extremely counter-productive even if the faction is overpowered. That's like seeing an image a little blurry in your binoculars or under a microscope and instead of sliding a little up or down you just rotate the dial like a madman. You'll never be able to truly balance a faction that way because your change is creating too many variables to accurately zoom into a clear focus.

tneva82 wrote:
Which I think is also the issue of "just playtest lol". Identifying that an overpowered faction is overpowered probably doesn't take that many games. GW's excuses for throwing these out are thin - its best explained by the fact they have deadlines, the books were all printed months ago and they don't really care and prefer to clean up afterwards.

Actually it does. Starcraft, RA3, many games have been out and it is still hard to identify which factions are over-powered at times. I think Terrans are OP in SC2 and Allies in RA3 for example, but other players will argue until they are blue in the face that everything is perfectly in order,

And to this day SC2 has been getting patches, The game is roughly 12 years old now and there are only 3 factons. It isn't nearly as complex as Warhammer 40k.

tneva82 wrote:
But the issue is that tuning a book down is a harder process. For example, do you change the datasheets, do you change the army rules or do you up the points so they play with less stuff? Almost every 2022 codex seems to have experienced a combo of all three. And how many games are you then going to play with each new version of these rules? Very quickly you can be into playing hundreds of games - and that faction has to get sent out the door so you can repeat the process with the next one.

That's why the steps to alter any faction should be incremental and only after a good amount of play testing. Making radical changes really doesn't help here, let alone imposing radical changes before a faction is even released or put into a single tournament.

Again, my argument isn't even centered around whether the Votann are over-powered or under-powered - I doubt any faction will be perfectly balanced anyways. Let alone the game as a whole.

My argument was that the call for GW to make radical changes was premature and the extremely low win rates seems to confirm my suspicions.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We'd have people here saying "wait and see" if GW decided Cultists were now armed with Assault Cannons standard for no point increase.

Sooo which wait and see is it? "Wait and see how much of a nerf they need" to the published codex

It shouldn't have been published to begin with

I agree. They didn't seem to have conducted any play-testing at all, and to me intuitively the prices seemed wonky and the faction mechanics over powered. The key word is seemed btw, as many times this happens in strategy games until the opponents learn to counter the faction and then the mechanic seems under powered. In the new Age of Empires this has happened on and off with Knight rushes for the French and Sprigalds along with Longbow rushes, etc. It's why I prefer at least a good month or two to let people get used to the list and see what counters are possible, and then I think fine tuning should be implemented - ideally in increments. This should start with point changes - as that is the most measurable of changes. Only if point changes seem to have no effect or the points increase becomes so massive that the unit cannot be fielded at all should the developers then deal with the game/unit mechanics, as that change is more qualitative and prone to unpredictable outcomes.

I do like to reserve judgment though for actual play tests, and even then sweeping or radical changes to an entire faction are counter-productive. You're just introducing too many new variables at once and not really fine-tuning the army like a responsible game developer should.

Likewise some of the nerfs didn't even make any sense. Making it so JT's prevent 6s for Magna-rails, etc, is almost a reason not to take them in a way. It creates cross purposes - like making it so Necron regeneration has a chance to kill models in a unit or Disgustingly Resilient can now inflict mortal wounds on one's own model or reduces ap, etc. It didn't seem well thought out at all.

The fact that they did this AND increased point costs substantially AND then further nerfed various relics, etc, to me seemed less like they were acting like responsible game developers and more like they were just caving into a community's emotional reactions.

The fact that various irate members of the community completely spazzed before any real testing and immediately gave GW several pats on the back for these insanely lazy nerfs which seemed based more on appeasement then actual balance didn't help.

And so now where are we? If Votann are under-powered, what does GW do then? Do they swing the pendulum back? How long is that going to take if they do so incrementally now (which they should, though a 30 percent win rate is a ways to go). Do they make more radical changes, make Votann overpowered (again?) and then after more complaints implement more radical, last-dicth-effort super-nerfs?

The problem with this is it can take years for the faction to recover. Take how they handled Guard, AdMech, etc. Initially those were considered OP - the community flipped - GW caved into the hysterical crowd (as most authorities will do seeing as holding one's ground and exercising sober leadership in the face of a screeching mob requires resolve, courage and a strong sense of integrity) and now years later those factions still have an extremely low win rate.

You got a combination of bad leaders, and bad followers. Combine this with a vocal, extremist minority and a corrupt/spineless leadership and you have the ingredients for a disaster in general - which is more common in strategy games then one might initially think.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
(which they should, though a 30 percent loss rate is a ways to go).

SQUATS DO NOT HAVE A 30% WIN RATE

Stop repeating this incredibly dishonest argument. You've been told multiple times that the 30% win rate data is not valid because it isn't using the full codex, you have no excuse for continuing to make that claim.

Oh come on, they do have a 30 percent win rate, you're just saying it doesn't count because the full codex isn't out for the general public yet.

And you are ignoring the point of how other factions didn't have their full models released right away and still upon initial launch had over-performing win rates.

To me this isn't by itself a problem, but to go from over-performing for a new faction to a 30 percent win rate suggests that the calls for such radical nerfs were way off. This means GW might have a long ways to go in order to make the faction viable again, and the fact is GW hasn't had the best record with regards to resolving these issues in a timely fashion, especially if the models are not selling well and there are some indicators that Votann sales have dipped heavily as a result of these crazy nerfs.

Likewise Titans did a play test of the Votann with their full Codex against a Tournament strong Ork list and they lost really, really bad. It was something like 35 points to 15 points. I mean, say Votann were TWICE as strong, that would mean 35 points to 30 - so at double their current strength they still would have lost.

To me it seems like a blunder by certain extreme members of the community and some inept tendencies by GW and the worst part is both those groups seem to be reinforcing reach other's bad tendencies.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
Oh come on, they do have a 30 percent win rate, you're just saying it doesn't count because the full codex isn't out for the general public yet.

Shocking, a faction that has half its codex banned in competitive play is struggling in competitive play. You can't ban key units from an army and then use that as an argument that the full post-ban army should get buffed.

And you are ignoring the point of how other factions didn't have their full models released right away and still upon initial launch had over-performing win rates.

What models from other factions were banned on launch? Tau didn't have launch bans, clown elves didn't have launch bans, gold marines didn't have launch bans, IIRC tyranids didn't have launch bans.

To me this isn't by itself a problem, but to go from over-performing for a new faction to a 30 percent win rate suggests that the calls for such radical nerfs were way off.

It only suggests that if you are making a dishonest attempt at getting your pet faction buffed. If you look at the situation objectively you'll see that one of the biggest nerfs, to the unit that generated the most outrage, was to a unit that is currently banned in competitive play. How can competitive play data tell you anything about that nerf when the unit isn't included in the data?

Again you don't seem to be understanding my point. My point isn't necessarily that Votann are OP or UP, but that the way the faction was released was bad (there was clearly no play testing) and the way a vocal minority overreacted ended up compounding the problem with things like organized boycotts before any tournaments or extensive play testing had been conducted,

GW responding by making a boat load of radical changes in every possible direction, sometimes to the point where the factions buffs become self-inflicting wounds just makes the hole deeper. And having this same angry mob then pat GW on the back for reacting in this way then sets a bad precedent.

My issue is with the process. And we've been here before.

GW makes an uber faction to sell more models. Some vocal minorities prone to irrational tendencies totally lose their minds and make irrational demands - GW goes all out appeasing these demands without any real self-reflection and we end up with problems that take years to fix.

This shows a lack of prioritization for GW, as they should focus on balancing the game as a whole (reducing the win rate of over-performers such as Sisters and 'Nids while buffing under-performers).

And furthermore it wastes a lot of time and resources. All these resources spent fixing all these factions over years can be going into other areas - such as adding new content, new lore or making the overly-insane prices cheaper. All these mistakes ultimately land on the consumer (as I doubt the share-owners or executives will nerf their own salaries or profits for their mistakes) and so we effectively are paying for these mistakes with models that cost hundreds of dollars.

Like I said, every mistake like this has an opportunity cost. Having to fix Guard, and AdMech AND Votann and Tau Drone Spam and 'Nids being OP and Sisters being OP and all the other crap takes resources away from projects that can be used to add new features to improve the game or reduce costs so as to make the game more accessible.

Likely this is why they might not even be play-testing sufficiently now or allowing games to be played in their stores - they are getting over-extended and now they are going to have to make painful cuts. Problems like that can be self-reinforcing over time. And even worse instead of focusing GW just seems invested in trying magical solutions - like new side games or factions to generate more income - which just creates more problems instead of addressing these fundamental issues,

Again the whole thing was handled bad overall - the initial launch, the community reaction, GW's response and the community's sheepish acceptance of the poorly conceived solution. What is missing is any sort of self-reflection, accountability or a willingness to learn from any parties whatsoever.

Wait are people actually saying things like 10 percent of the player base should be sacrificed so 90 percent of players can have a good time? Geez.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Yes. A faction with a 10% win rate makes things miserable for a small subset of players: the people who play that specific faction and do not have any other army. A faction with a 90% win rate makes things miserable for everyone except that faction. One of these groups is much larger than the other and if I have to choose which one to sacrifice the choice is obvious.

" Sometimes you must cull the weak to preserve the Strength of the Herd!" - Dr. Thraxx of the Global Liberation Army.

Seconded by Emperor Palpatine, Voldemort, Thanos, and other particularly pragmatic politicians.

On a more serious and mature note, this is ridiculous. A good, fair strategy game should be giving everyone a fair chance and a good time. Sacrificing ten percent of the player base or any percent for " The Greater Good" is ridiculous.

I mean by that reasoning up to 20 percent, or 30-40 percent can be sacrificed. This is absurd for a board game that's supposed to be fun and fairness is a large part of this. I can accept some imbalance for a little while for a new faction, especially if it's played by a minority and only possibly OP, but to say things like " Well sometimes you have to leave Grandma behind so the rest of us can make the trail" about players in a board game sounds like something from a cartoon.

Asmodios wrote:

Asenion wrote:
Wait are people actually saying things like 10 percent of the player base should be sacrificed so 90 percent of players can have a good time? Geez.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Yes. A faction with a 10% win rate makes things miserable for a small subset of players: the people who play that specific faction and do not have any other army. A faction with a 90% win rate makes things miserable for everyone except that faction. One of these groups is much larger than the other and if I have to choose which one to sacrifice the choice is obvious.

" Sometimes you must cull the weak to preserve the Strength of the Herd!" - Dr. Thraxx of the Global Liberation Army.

Seconded by Emperor Palpatine, Voldemort, Thanos, and other particularly pragmatic politicians.

On a more serious and mature note, this is ridiculous. A good, fair strategy game should be giving everyone a fair chance and a good time. Sacrificing ten percent of the player base or any percent for " The Greater Good" is ridiculous.

I mean by that reasoning up to 20 percent, or 30-40 percent can be sacrificed. This is absurd for a board game that's supposed to be fun and fairness is a large part of this. I can accept some imbalance for a little while for a new faction, especially if it's played by a minority and only possibly OP, but to say things like " Well sometimes you have to leave Grandma behind so the rest of us can make the trail" about players in a board game sounds like something from a cartoon.

Nobody was advocating for 10% win rates. But if faced with a 10% or 90% a 10% would be healthier for the game... obviously the goat is between 45-55 as stated multiple times by GW

Healthier is questionable here. That's like saying Cancer is Healthier then AIDS.

Technically the K-T Meteor Strike was better then the Methane Explosion of the Great Dying, but that's far from ideal. Certainly the developers and community for a board game, meant for fun with nigh endless resources can do better then that!

Please don't spam the forum.

Table wrote:
This is going to be a very bad take for me, but one I am feeling none the less. It FEELS like some of the Squat supporters ( or those who did not want them nerfed ) are just salty because they were /are not the curbstompers they were before the nerfs.

I know its probably a small number of squat fans, but I sense it nonetheless.

All this just to make excuses for GW not having play testers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think the argument is more "have more testers".

Whether its worthwhile for GW to have 10-20 people who just play 2 games of 40k every working day is an open question - but really, its probably not *that* expensive. That would give you say 200-400 games a month. Which would probably give you decent indications.

Admittedly whether these people would go mad playing this much and trying to keep the countless different rules versions in their heads is an open question.

I guess for "cheap" you could have say 5-10 archetype armies that you play into and then see how it feels. If its a bit much, it should be obvious. I feel though there are quite a few different sort of lists out there, and so going "right, one game into Marines, tick" isn't really going to give you much.

You are way overestimating the difficulty. If you have 10-15 lists you want tested that's 30-45 games per faction, you don't need to revise points for every faction every month. Hiring 20 people would absolutely be expensive and wouldn't do a damn thing if they were just playing for fun, what GW needs is structure to their playtesting. Volunteers can absolutely do it, maybe GW shouldn't send the darn finished codex to them and should instead include them WAY earlier in the process so they have influence and cannot leak the thing.

Exactly. Other companies have play testers. People will do it for free. It is crazy how these people are literally arguing that GW should not conduct play testing.

Instead their suggestion is to sacrifice 10 percent of the player base so the other 90 percent can have fun. It makes no sense at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Most of it doesn't NEED testing because those things can be eyed out. If you need to test that a 2++ army trait is broken, you shouldn't be writing rules to begin with. Same way your precious Votaan shouldn't have made it to the printers as is, but here we are because you're mad and want more army wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, Harlequins by themselves with nothing are too strong to begin with. The fact you think some Relic interaction is what leads to Voidweavers being a thing is humorous to be frank. They're too strong by themselves, duh.

You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Again another good reiteration of an obvious point.

But nope - instead the solution is to ruin the game for some players so that GW doesn't have to play test i.e. sacrifice the 10 percent for the 90 percent.

Btw I love how this person is allowed to make accusations and insult you over instead of addressing the substance of your points.

I mean has this person presented any evidence at all you are a Votann player or just want auto-wins?

Why are they allowed to just make these kinds of insulting accusations with impunity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

Again do you have any evidence that this person is a Votann player? Why do you keep saying this over and over and then saying they are " just mad about not getting easy wins", etc..

It sounds like you are just insulting and accusing people at this point.

Dudeface wrote:


And you're here leveling accusations I want free wins for a faction I don't own, don't want to own and openly stated I feel needed a nerf in this very thread and comment chain.

Exactly. This is the fifth or sixth time they've done this. As if anyone who disagrees with how GW handled the issue is a hard core Votann player with these evil motives.

Some have even started throwing f bombs with no consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?

That's a fascinating claim given the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can look at your post history and see that you've made three different threads on your squat lists:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807079.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807481.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807118.page

(Oh, and I'm sure it's no coincidence at all that all three of them are "friendly/casual" lists with 3x railgun land fortress and the full judgement token buff stacking on them.)

Lol. I haven't played with a single one of those armies. And I can't believe you are borderline stalking me at this point.

I don't own the models or play at tournaments even. Have not even bought the Codex. I'm just designing armies for the new faction for fun.

I am not a Votann player I just designed armies like I do for other factions. Am I not allowed to do this now?

In any case, why should I even have to be defending myself?

I mean what happens if your wrong and not everyone disagreeing with you is some Votann player wanting easy wins - does your case fall apart?

If so it suggests the substance of your arguments are pretty flimsy.

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?

That's a fascinating claim given the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can look at your post history and see that you've made three different threads on your squat lists:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807079.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807481.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807118.page

(Oh, and I'm sure it's no coincidence at all that all three of them are "friendly/casual" lists with 3x railgun land fortress and the full judgement token buff stacking on them.)

They were asking for evidence that I was leagues player...

This too..I noticed 90 percent of these accusations were directed at you.

I hope you don't own any Votann models or bought the Codex btw, because it may considered irrefutable evidence of you being a life-long Votann fanboy wanting a 1 round 99 percent win rate.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
They were asking for evidence that I was leagues player...

Not in the part I quoted:

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asenion wrote:
I haven't played with a single one of those armies.

"I'm not a squat player, I just make "friendly" army lists that spam their best unit and multiple threads complaining about the fact that it got nerfed."

Everyone believes you.

And I can't believe you are borderline stalking me at this point.

"I can't believe someone looked at my public post history to see that my claims are inconsistent with my past actions."

Given your passionate interest in apologies for insulting comments I assume you'll be very quick to apologize for accusing me of "borderline stalking".

You are going into my posts on Army design in a totally different section of the forum and they don't even prove what you are trying to assert. That gives off stalker vibes.

Btw I haven't looked into any of your post history - because, frankly I don't care. I mean if I look in and find you field a Nid army should I be like " OMG he just wants to keep Nids overpowered!"

And really what you believe doesn't matter. If you think I own the Votann Codex and all the models and play in tournaments that's up to you. It's weird you are committed to this belief but I don't see how I'm going to change your mind.

I don't even own a single model nor have I played one game with them though. If I'm a Votann player, apparently I'm one with no models that doesn't play the faction ever.

I guess just designing armies means I play the faction now. Pretty weird.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ingtaer wrote:

Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.

Agreed. Arguments should be made about the substance of the post, not people's character or perceptions of their motives.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
You are going into my posts on Army design in a totally different section of the forum and they don't even prove what you are trying to assert. That gives off stalker vibes.

It gives off "stalker vibes" because it's inconvenient for your claim that you don't have a personal stake in this debate, nothing more.

If you think I own the Votann Codex and all the models and play in tournaments that's up to you.

I'm well aware that you don't own the land fortress models you wanted to spam, given that they're still up for pre-order and haven't shipped yet. This is one of those things where you're technically telling the truth but doing so in a way that misleads people into believing something you didn't directly say. It was very obvious from the way you talked about those lists that you intended to play them even if the models aren't yet available, and it strongly suggests that your motive for making multiple complaint threads about the squat nerf is that you are frustrated that you didn't get to take full advantage of the list you had planned.

Can you please stop making accusations and calling me a liar without evidence?

Dudeface wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

Time to simmer down, people. Please remember the rules and do better at following them. Especially #1.

Understood but as someone often involved in these situations please be heavier handed. A reminder clearly isn't curbing behaviour and as long as there is a chunk of the members whose sole content is "GW is gak and if you argue disagree you're an idiot LOL" it'll keep happening. I'll take a ban or suspension if desired because eventually it either has to stop or someone gets driven away anyway.

Well one side has been dropping f bombs and accusations without consequences while others like me get in trouble over telling a Wendy's joke because apparently that is "spam" i.e..they said it was for " The Greater Good" that some players fun be sacrificed so that 90 percent can enjoy the game.

My response was " Sir this is a Wendy's" which I felt was a light hearted way of saying - look this is about a product/service. The idea that anyone has to be sacrificed or any sort of greater good logic involving such needs be applied at all is kind of a joke.

Apparently THAT joke was too much and I'm presuming someone reported me. But pages of insults and f bombs and accusations are just fine.

In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous or that any sacrifice of a percentage of the player base is required at all. This is not a real life economic or military situation. There is no reason GW can't make it so the game is fair and everyone is having a good time. If a fast food worker can do it - GW should be able to do it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Asenion wrote:

In any case I still think their argument that 90 percent of players can't have any fun unless 10 percent are sacrificed is ridiculous

That wasn't the argument at all tho..

I did ask it as a question at one point, and they did agree that yes, literally it's better to sacrifice the gaming experience for 10 percent of players so that 90 percent can enjoy the game. I think that's pretty unwarranted to be willing to go to that extreme.

This was in response to their similar claim that it's okay for Votann to be underpowered because if they are OP it ruins the game for everyone else playing as another faction ( I find both claims questionable - one because the game doesn't need to be ruined for anyone - GW has the resources to fix this or at least engage in some basic Alpha Testing with volunteers, and second, I really think it's a bit exaggerated to say that having the Votann or any new faction temporarily OP so that balance changes can be made after even just a couple months testing ruins the game for the majority. The majority of players are not competitive as in tournament level and tournaments can just ban the faction temporarily if there is a serious problem. )

I brought up the 10 percent vs 90 just to see how far they would be willing to go with this reasoning. I like to know where people are honestly coming from so I can get directly to the crux of the issue. So they made one argument and then a separate related argument when queried in a direct manner.

In fact I did see them using numbers like that as hypotheticals before this so part of it was also clarification and they clarified saying yes, ten percent can be sacrificed for the 90 percent. And then tried to justify it using Vulcan logic over a board game. I commented that we don't need Star Trek level logic about making cold, tough choices for what is for most people a hobby they are using to unwind at the end of a hard day. This is supposed to be chips and soda time, not a " who gets the chopping block" time. I joked around about it, and while I don't see how that was wrong ( they weren't personal attack jokes, just more things on how that sounds like Thanos logic ) - I wish that didn't upset whoever reported me that bad as it was not meant to insult anyone. I mean " Sir this is a Wendy's" is pretty light.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"We'd rather have one army with a 10% win rate than a 90% win rate."

This is not

"We'd be willing to sacrifice the fun of 10% of people for 90% of people."

And that is not

"90% of players can't have any fun unless 10% are sacrificed."

Notice how each one is more extreme than the last? None of them are the same. Please do not think they are the same.

I made the statement " It is hard to believe anyone would actually suggest we have to sacrifice 10 percent of players for the 90 percent" and they then chose to defend that statement.

I may have introduced it, but they defended it for pages and began making arguments on how this is logical for the greater good.

Nobody forced them to defend that statement. You can try to argue I tricked them or trapped them but they know how to read and they defended that statement exact for several pages.

Btw if I don't respond to certain arguments it's likely because the person is on ignore. I rarely do that but I think having the same person crop up in multiple unrelated threads with the same unpleasant tone warrants this. I'm not naming anyone, just letting you know if I seem to be ignoring an argument you think I should address you might wish to present it yourself.