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.

There are some serious incomplete rules and inaccuracies for LoV rules in these posts.

LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Their guns can move and fire at full effect, but there is no advance and fire base options for their weapons or units.

Yes the pioneers are fast, they will go 18" if they advance- but wont shoot or charge.

The hearthguard can spend CP to teleport, once per game per units. So not all over the place all the time.

They have some units that can move with drawbacks or a cost, but most of their army will be slow.

LoV have a range limitation, coupled with being slow, this means most of their army will not be shooting turn 1-2 unless you move up to the midboard. It's a 5 turn game, if they are spreading out to take objectives not all their units can support each other like many other "Fast" factions which can rapidly redeploy multiple units across a table and still shoot and or charge.

Judgements aren't broken, although the combination of judgement 3(pretty easy for GTL) autohitting being a wound of 6 and magna rail might be.

Alternatively or additionally change magna rail weapons so the wounds still require armor saves. If a model dies and there are left over wounds the next model gets a save, damage only continues if it fails the save. Or cap how many additional models can die, it is an interesting rule but it basically is better than blast weapons against hordes, and still a great anti armor weapon. Or even just one of those old mechanics like the damage is applied to another model in the unit on a 2+, then 3+, then 4+, then 5+, then 6+ for all remaining damage.

There are plenty of youtube battle reports where you can watch the outcome of actual votann on a table with terrain, and being distances apart from things. They are doing well, but they aren't 8th edition iron hands good. They lose games to multiple factions - not just to mirror matches, and have few crazy blow outs.

Thank you for clearing that up

blaktoof wrote:
There are some serious incomplete rules and inaccuracies for LoV rules in these posts.

LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Their guns can move and fire at full effect, but there is no advance and fire base options for their weapons or units.

Yes the pioneers are fast, they will go 18" if they advance- but wont shoot or charge.

The hearthguard can spend CP to teleport, once per game per units. So not all over the place all the time.

They have some units that can move with drawbacks or a cost, but most of their army will be slow.

LoV have a range limitation, coupled with being slow, this means most of their army will not be shooting turn 1-2 unless you move up to the midboard. It's a 5 turn game, if they are spreading out to take objectives not all their units can support each other like many other "Fast" factions which can rapidly redeploy multiple units across a table and still shoot and or charge.

Judgements aren't broken, although the combination of judgement 3(pretty easy for GTL) autohitting being a wound of 6 and magna rail might be.

Alternatively or additionally change magna rail weapons so the wounds still require armor saves. If a model dies and there are left over wounds the next model gets a save, damage only continues if it fails the save. Or cap how many additional models can die, it is an interesting rule but it basically is better than blast weapons against hordes, and still a great anti armor weapon. Or even just one of those old mechanics like the damage is applied to another model in the unit on a 2+, then 3+, then 4+, then 5+, then 6+ for all remaining damage.

There are plenty of youtube battle reports where you can watch the outcome of actual votann on a table with terrain, and being distances apart from things. They are doing well, but they aren't 8th edition iron hands good. They lose games to multiple factions - not just to mirror matches, and have few crazy blow outs.

I agree with a lot of this, and I don't think Votann will dominate the top tables in the way that Nids for example did on release. But the notion that Judgement tokens are not broken is one I cannot agree with.

Autowound is a very powerful mechanic. Autowounds on anything other then 6's gets ridiculous and the fact that they accumulate over the course of the game and don't go away is just preposterous.

 Jidmah wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
No organized data collection is not the same as no data.

Nor is it the same as "lots and lots of data"

Any yet, we still have lots and lots of data, in the places I just explained to you.

Do you actually have anything to add to this discussion? Because so far, all you have done is argue from incredulity.

Very well. I eagerly await you post of collated data

Not worried about them. If encountered my orks will just drop a space hulk on their heads. (Or maybe a few roks).

So you can gak all over it with a one-liner? I've learned my lesson and know better than investing this kind of work into a dakka post.

The data has been presented to you, it is freely available and has been analyzed by credible sources. You can either go read it yourself to satisfy your doubts or be ignorant of it, your choice.

Logical arguments are wasted on ignorant people, so either try educating yourself or alternatively have a good day feeling superior to me.

blaktoof wrote:
LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Why people keep insisting they are slow when they have a) transports which are pretty darn fast b) have also bike unit that's fast.

You aren't slow when you can reach objectives fast. If they didn't have transports and bikes sure. But speed of infantry doesn't matter because you are where you need to be in turn 2. Space marines arent' there any faster in practice.

You are fixating on one part of rules and forget rest. It's like claiming tyranids suck at destroying tanks looking at hormagaunt datasheet...

 Jidmah wrote:
So you can gak all over it with a one-liner? I've learned my lesson and know better than investing this kind of work into a dakka post.

The data has been presented to you, it is freely available and has been analyzed by credible sources. You can either go read it yourself to satisfy your doubts or be ignorant of it, your choice.

Logical arguments are wasted on ignorant people, so either try educating yourself or alternatively have a good day feeling superior to me.

You're all over the place. Now there's both no organized data and analyzed data. But we should stop either way as we're already off topic and, as you said, it's not worth the effort for a dakka post because someone will just gak on your post with a one liner (or a wikipedia link) so they can feel superior

tneva82 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Why people keep insisting they are slow when they have a) transports which are pretty darn fast b) have also bike unit that's fast.

You aren't slow when you can reach objectives fast. If they didn't have transports and bikes sure. But speed of infantry doesn't matter because you are where you need to be in turn 2. Space marines arent' there any faster in practice.

You are fixating on one part of rules and forget rest. It's like claiming tyranids suck at destroying tanks looking at hormagaunt datasheet...

Not all units are in transports all the time nor will every LoV-list spamm bikes.

LoV are slow outside of bikes and transports, and their average weapon-range is very low to boot.

These are obvious drawbacks that LoV-bashers happily ignore because "Grrr, LoV broken!"...

If LoV aren't considered slow due to bikes and transports, then you might as well claim that Eldar aren't considered fragile because they have Wraithguard and Wraithlords.

 MinscS2 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
LoV are slow. They have a 5" base movement and can advance a set 3", 6" of they have the accelerated keyword (some few units have this).

Why people keep insisting they are slow when they have a) transports which are pretty darn fast b) have also bike unit that's fast.

You aren't slow when you can reach objectives fast. If they didn't have transports and bikes sure. But speed of infantry doesn't matter because you are where you need to be in turn 2. Space marines arent' there any faster in practice.

You are fixating on one part of rules and forget rest. It's like claiming tyranids suck at destroying tanks looking at hormagaunt datasheet...

Not all units are in transports all the time nor will every LoV-list spamm bikes.

LoV are slow outside of bikes and transports, and their average weapon-range is very low to boot.

These are obvious drawbacks that LoV-bashers happily ignore because "Grrr, LoV broken!"...

And honestly after 9 games, my Bikes has been some of the worst preforming units, loads of str 5 and str6 shots with low AP, sure rr1s to hit, but general do 6-7D and then die, or I keep them far enough away to not be a threat/charged and only deal 2-3D. IDK who keeps saying they are insanely powerful bc I dont see it. Now for utility purpose? yeah they are very good, Pre-game ObSec move unit that can help prevent DS and for a CP just out a JT on any unit, they are great, as a 6-9 man unit for damage? they are meh. So I just take 2-3 3mans now for utility. I found their speed and cheapness is needed in the army and most the time they just put a JT onto something and hold objectives/do secondaries.

How is their average weapon range - of 18"-24" by my count - "very low"?

The point about being dependent on transports for speed is reasonable - and so big nerfs to say the Hekaton/Sagitaur would inevitably spill over to the power of Beserks. But at least right now this isn't an issue, because the transports are great.

Clearly you could build a footslogging Squat force - and/or put half your points into basic Hearthkin - that would be slow and probably not all that good at scoring objectives. But why would you?

Tyel wrote:
How is their average weapon range - of 18"-24" by my count - "very low"?

The point about being dependent on transports for speed is reasonable - and so big nerfs to say the Hekaton/Sagitaur would inevitably spill over to the power of Beserks. But at least right now this isn't an issue, because the transports are great.

Clearly you could build a footslogging Squat force - and/or put half your points into basic Hearthkin - that would be slow and probably not all that good at scoring objectives. But why would you?

Bc one of their guns is range 12"...... They get 5 shots each and when 2 of them are out of range you go from 15 shots (before upgrade from 1 guy) to 9 shots. Yes the Beam gives you 2 more shots that can hit another unit but that then is only 18" which most units can move and charge that far, and 100% move and charge if you are within 12". If you want the beam to hit multiple units as well you are also at risk. Over all a 3 man unit is looking at 11 pseudo 12 shots outside of threat range.

I don't really follow. Okay sure the bikers have a 12" shotgun. But the rest of the units don't. How many shots should a 30 point model with M12 & a pre-game move, T5, 3 wounds and a 4+ AoC no rerolls to wound save have?

The Newman wrote:
I'll admit I was surprised at them getting banned from tournament play, but only because it took this long for it to occur to someone. Looking back we probably should have started banning new
books from everything outside of GTs until after their first Balance Dataslate after Drukhari came out.

The same tournament circuit that banned them has banned every new codex at least until an FAQ comes out. It's only news now because @#$%ty sites like spikeybits can frame it as "Votann are so OP they got BANNED! *shocked face" for the clicks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They're really good. The only drawback is mobility...but you can take 18 bikes that have decent guns, good rules, 24" move and obsec. Not really slow when 1/3 of your army can be 24" move obsec units.

LD8 makes them susceptible to running if there's LD mods out there. I thought I read that they have an auto-pass strat though? Can't remember.

Also, weak LD has to be the easiest Downside to look past ever. Especially at their rumored ppm settings.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
LD8 makes them susceptible to running if there's LD mods out there. I thought I read that they have an auto-pass strat though? Can't remember.

Nobody takes low LD seriously as a weakness, come on dude. They already have the same LD as Marines too.

Hecaton wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
If people had a serious problem with how Judgement Tokens and Rail-Cannons then they should have had a problem with perma-transhuman armies, they should have been equally calling for bans on Harlequins or Tyranids and yet nothing stopped them from appearing in tournament games. People should have been calling for bans on Ad. Mech and cult of Strife/Drukhari with their consistent damage output and yet they were allowed to participate and dominate the meta no different to how Tyranids have done.

Why isn't your attitude "better late than never"? It sounds like you don't want the game to be better.

Trickle down game balance is real, at least as far as you're concerned. GT players have a better handle on Votann than you do.

Question: Why are you deliberately lying on a public online forum?

Such an obtuse viewpoint. The point isn't "better late than never" for all the issues presented. The point is people should have had an issue earlier with the fact their codexs/rules were realesed in such a state. If GW kept to their design philosphies right at the start and had every codex at the same level as the SM/Necron codex rather than ramping up the power creep, repeating the same issue edition by edition, at Drukhari/Ad.Mech. They souldn't need to wait a month for a balnce dataslate when it could have been handled earlier on in the book in the first place. GW have had 35 years of designing 40k with maxumum contyrol over what they do. Our attitude shouldn't be an easy pass to GW with "at least they're..." they should already be better.

The red flags were there from the start. What I see is a lot of people getting shocked about something that's been happening for a long time now in 9E. The game has not improved in quality, but has merely bloated itself in hard-counters of subversions of the core rules to finicky rules that require a self-made quick refrence sheet if you don't want to gain a migraine mid-game trying to remember certain rules. patched over with data slate after data-slate. At this point It would better serve GW for digital rules that they just update than going after the sluggish release for book after book. If Rumours are true and 10E is coming next year as another hard reset then what does it actually give Votann, Guard and WE a codex for? That's a question I think will only be answered when GW actually release the book.

Votann are just the end-game, the conclusion of GT players praising GW on a "good job" when that is not the case. It's a "good job" for GT players because GW had made a game to encourge/focus on the routine that they've been playing edition-by-edition. Votann represent all the red flags of the edition rules-wise in a single book. I fail to understand why so many GT players are upset when it's literally everything they could have wanted in a book, no different to 7E Craftworlds that they took. They didn't care then and they shouldn't care now.

Now here's where we come into the lie: Trickle-down Game Balence does not correlate with majority folks existing meta, at least as far as your concerned. If RTT's did by any stretch of the imagination then why isn't every game table of every type of game flooded by Harlequins, Leviathan Tyranids and now, Votann in every game? It's because there's a wide and far reach of models and factions/subfactions out there that people are invested in for a wide variety of reasons. There are so many factions and sub-factions in this game that people love, but sadly not everyone will find enjoyable games in some matchups. People in general are ok with uphill battles but when someone encounters a list/faction that can with against their opponent by early game by a landside with little to no agency to counterplay then it isn't really that well balanced for being "the best balnced edition to date".

Folks can say "Its balanced" but it won't be to that player if they felt they had no ability to counterplay at all. All that "statement" then becomes is a titilatiing, and smarmy remark. GT play does not represent the entirety of how the game is played and they shouldn't be used as the mouthpiece to speak on the behalf of the rest of the community.

9E is as balanced as any other edition. In many cases 9E is reflecting 7E in terms of its rules quality in bloat. People still buy the models to build and paint, that will never change and will be reflected in their annual report, but I've seen so many people just walk away from the game/hobby or just straight up jump to HH or KT to get some better external balance away from 40k, because they don't feel "included" in 40k anymore.

 The Warp Forge wrote:


Question: Why are you deliberately lying on a public online forum?

I'm not. And I'm not going to bother answering the rest of your inane rant if you're going to start it that way. It's clear that you're not worth engaging with if you're going to misrepresent what I'm saying to that degree. You don't understand competitive players, and you don't understand the game, you're just mindlessly bleating "competitive" bad like a scrub.