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.

artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.

Its not "that good" (as in over bearing early game to be nerfed), Ive played a few games with them. One game for example was against BT (2 dreads, big tank with 6 meltas and 3 las cannon, 20 crusades, incursors, 2 named HQs, some VGVs and BGVs, and 2 Eliminators for holding back fields). It was 50/50 T1, T2, and even T3, it wasn't till end of T3 that he felt like he could not win, but the score was even at the end of T3, he just would not be able to get Grind and would only be able to get up to 40 primary no maxing them. The end score if he would have kept playing would be close, 82(me) to 70(him).

LoV are a grind, they do have a lot of upfront damage and that is what people are focusing on, but what they are not looking at is there isnt a lot more to it on so few of units.

Karol wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

artific3r wrote:
If it's really that good it will be demolished by the first round of nerfs.

Based on Mike Brandt's comments from way back in the Drukhari days, GW may be intentionally balancing on a Rock-Paper-Scissors model.

What does that even mean in the context of what the other poster said?

That just like DE were supposed to be balanced by ad mecha and orks, although not the way the players of armies different then those three, the LoV are going to be balanced the same way by upcoming books or maybe they will be balanced by core rules changes, the way 2.0 marines were, in the next edition.

I don't think you're making sense, Karol.

It was exactly what the testers told us players. To not worry about DE, because Ad mecha are even better and will reign them in. If GW did stuff like that in the past why shouldn't they do the same in the future. The 2.0 marines when the books were coming out had rules, which GW knew will work different in the next , 9th ed and that their "OP" rules at the end of an edition are going to be normal for the next edition.

Considering the past, do people really think that GW with the next 2-3 books is deep in to thought, how to balance them for 9th ed? And if we went by what happens to reset end of an edition factions, LoV may end up like SoB. Hard nerfed in 10th by new edition rules, only to be brought back to playability by wave 2 of new models and a new codex dropping a year or so after the initial one.

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players. To not worry about DE, because Ad mecha are even better and will reign them in. If GW did stuff like that in the past why shouldn't they do the same in the future. The 2.0 marines when the books were coming out had rules, which GW knew will work different in the next , 9th ed and that their "OP" rules at the end of an edition are going to be normal for the next edition.

Considering the past, do people really think that GW with the next 2-3 books is deep in to thought, how to balance them for 9th ed? And if we went by what happens to reset end of an edition factions, LoV may end up like SoB. Hard nerfed in 10th by new edition rules, only to be brought back to playability by wave 2 of new models and a new codex dropping a year or so after the initial one.

Um, no? We knew Admech was strong, and guess what? They tabled people T1 and T2 for a good 2 months, then they got nerfed. No one said Admech was going to help DE after the nerfs.

Also Im not saying Votann was made to counter other armies, i am saying they are literally countered by some armies bc of how they are just like Knights are as well. I dont believe this crap that GW makes armies to counter armies, I think they just want some cool good rules to sell models better and if they need to nerf then they will. Its not that complicated to want an army to do well with a new release, you dont need some conspiracy theory about counter XYZ.

 Vilgeir wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Even outside of the obvious overcosting it's yet another instance of subfaction rules really not being thought out well-enough and having such strong bonuses they warp everything in the codex around them. This has been a consistent issue ever since late 8th. Berzerks are absolutely undercosted at 22ppm already, but giving them a 5++ on top of that is just true insanity. But like I said, this is a consistent issue across multiple books; Bloody Rose has insane buffs for what is already a very CC focused faction so it just makes it the practical default choice while also leading to several units feeling insanely undercosted when taken as Bloody Rose; because they've been priced assuming some subfactionless baseline. The Marine books are all just huge messes because depending on supplement a somewhat innocuous unit could be getting an insane chapter tactic + an insane superdoctrine that just magnifies its power into the stratosphere. The 5 main Craftworlds all actually have really well thought-out subfaction rules, Biel-Tan and Ulthwe are obviously the best, but they aren't so powerfully warping to negatively effect the rest of the codex.... except that Hail of Doom custom exists which is such a gigantic power boost to what are already the only cost-efficient units in the codex that it is still the best choice and makes some of those units feel undercosted (even though outside of that custom trait they are not).

You seem to focus heavily on Ymyr here when talking about Beserks without considering how disgusting they'll be in Kronus, which all but makes them Bloody Rose Repentia. Repentia are great units, but they are made crazy powerful from Quick to Anger, Tear Them Down, Sacred Rites, and being able to fight on death all stacking together to give them some disgusting buffs - many of which are exactly the same things that make BR Repentia so damn oppressive. Kronus gives you all of that on more durable models that can get that 5++ just by being near a Kahl anyway.

I feel like Ymyr's army wide invuln benefit is a trap. The ones that get a 4++ save are the 2+ units with Void Armour, so your opponent has to put AP -4 into them for you to have even seen a benefit there, and that goes to AP -5 when the unit is in cover. The units that get a 5++ save can do so in any other League provided you park a Kahl next to them with a Rampart Crest, making this benefit really only about flexibility and decentralization rather than a unique defensive benefit only they can do. The best part of Ymyr is the range boost, and the best part about the defensive buff is that it gives you some modicum of freedom to make other choices, both when list building and during a match.

They go from getting a T-shirt save to a 5+ invun. That is an absolutely gigantic boost in survivability that completely changes how to look at the unit.

Kronus gives them buffs that makes them marginally better at what they're already good at. Them being S11 instead of S10 is meaningless and they do so much damage as-is the extra attack is literal overkill vs every conceivable target outside of CSM Terminator blocks.

Plus Ymyr kicks other units like the Land Fortress and the Iron Master into overdrive. Outside of Thurian League, Ymyr is unquestionably the best subfaction in the book and takes a bunch of already overpowered units and just makes them even better.

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

Literally no one lol.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

 Rihgu wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

Are Robbins and Brandt GW employees or out of house playtesters?

 Rihgu wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose" this is them saying lets see how the meta goes first. Which to be far was normally true especially when the army was still very new. Everyone said Custodes was bad and the meta would ruin them but look what happened they ended up being S tier until nerfs. So predicting the future meta isn't always correct. We are saying no one said GW does it on purpose for 1 army to be better than the other to counter each other in the meta. GW just saw a better book sell more models, so how do you sell an armies models when it has been bad for years and not sell? make it stronger than it should, nothing more to it.

Hecaton wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

Are Robbins and Brandt GW employees or out of house playtesters?

Robbins is an out of house playtester and Brandt is the global events coordinator for GW.

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose" this is them saying lets see how the meta goes first.

"rock in a scissors meta" seems like a pretty overt and direct reference to a game called Rock-Paper-Scissors, in which Rock beats Scissors, but Rock is in turn beaten by Paper. He is ALSO saying that we should see how the meta shakes out, which considering the context appears to be saying "once we have released more Paper, if Drukhari is still too good, we will adjust".

 Bosskelot wrote:

They go from getting a T-shirt save to a 5+ invun. That is an absolutely gigantic boost in survivability that completely changes how to look at the unit

You misunderstand me, sorry for not being clearer. What I'm saying is that they do not need to be Ymyr to get the 5+ invulnerable save as any unit next to a Kahl will get the exact same buff. I didn't mean to imply that the 5++ wasn't useful, only that going Ymyr for the 5++ is not strictly necessary. You can still give them a 5++ as Kronus or GTL, for example.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Kronus gives them buffs that makes them marginally better at what they're already good at. Them being S11 instead of S10 is meaningless and they do so much damage as-is the extra attack is literal overkill vs every conceivable target outside of CSM Terminator blocks.

+1 Attack, +1 AP, AND +1 Strength, not to mention exploding sixes to hit. That's not marginally better, I'd argue. That's significantly better. An extra attack helps smooth out -1 to hit, for example.

Note just how much being able to swing back on death with +1 Attack and +1 AP make Repentia so dangerous. For Beserks, adding all those buffs on top will punish the hell out of anything that dares to charge them.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Plus Ymyr kicks other units like the Land Fortress and the Iron Master into overdrive. Outside of Thurian League, Ymyr is unquestionably the best subfaction in the book and takes a bunch of already overpowered units and just makes them even better.

Definitely with you there. I was only addressing just how the defensive buff from that custom reads as a trap considering all your infantry can get it easy enough already or would need to face insane AP values to get any benefit anyway.

I do think there's some possible play with Urani-Surtr depending on opponent as +1T is pretty decent for an army that disables wound rerolls, but it definitely isn't anywhere near the clear strength of Ymyr beam spam or GTL's ability to judge things.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same

I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.

EviscerationPlague 806816 11430403 wrote:
What
How is that not the same

Specialy considering what happened when the armies that "delt with DE" got nerfed hard, we suddenly got DE exploded to 60%+ win rates again.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players.

Who? When?

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same

There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague 806816 11430403 wrote:
What
How is that not the same

Specialy considering what happened when the armies that "delt with DE" got nerfed hard, we suddenly got DE exploded to 60%+ win rates again.

I am talking about the person that claimed GW makes a codex to counter another codex, I am saying they dont do that. Im not saying DE wasn't strong, I'm not saying it wasn't power creep, i am saying they didn't make DE to beat marines, and they then didn't make Admch to beat DE,a nd then Orks to beat Admech. Its GW they just want to sell models to there is a slight power creep in general.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.

A lot of times the people who come to the top of emergent social hierarchies aren't there for competence.

Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.

A lot of times the people who come to the top of emergent social hierarchies aren't there for competence.

Sometimes they're just hired for attitude!

 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?

Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same

There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.

Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.

 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?

Last time I can recall was the new Soulblight tome for AoS.
It came out with some stuff in it that didn't really make much sense/apply for AoS 2e & GW said something vague about it being written to work with the next edition.
And shortly after that AoS 3e landed.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same

There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.

Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.

I think you missed my point, no where did he say DE was built to fight X army, or another army was built to fight DE, people in here were saying "GW makes armies as Rock, Paper, Scissor on purpose" there is no proof of that and I think its silly when really it easier to understand and see that they are just adding power creep to each book to sell models not some crazy weird practice to have balance to the game by having some armies purposefully strong against other certain armies. By the nature of same books they will just happen to be stronger against others anyways, Knights and Votann are 2 very good examples of this.

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?

Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just find it hilarious that the guys in charge of the majority of the US tourney scene for 40k can be so wildly out of touch with the basics of how wargames function. Sheer incompetence.

A lot of times the people who come to the top of emergent social hierarchies aren't there for competence.

Sometimes they're just hired for attitude!

To clarify, by "emergent" I don't meant that they were ever hired at all. Think about the people who run miniature gaming facebook groups.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?

Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL

Wasn't the whole Psychic Awakening series "written with 9th edition in mind"?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same

There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.

Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.

I think you missed my point, no where did he say DE was built to fight X army, or another army was built to fight DE,

Correct, and nobody was claiming that that was being said.

people in here were saying "GW makes armies as Rock, Paper, Scissor on purpose" there is no proof of that and I think its silly when really it easier to understand and see that they are just adding power creep to each book to sell models not some crazy weird practice to have balance to the game by having some armies purposefully strong against other certain armies. By the nature of same books they will just happen to be stronger against others anyways, Knights and Votann are 2 very good examples of this.

Did you look at the screencap that this entire conversation revolves around? The claim isn't that "Drukhari beat Space Marines, Admech beats Drukhari, Space Marines beat Admech".

It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.

"Drukhari are a rock on[sic] a scissors meta". "it shouldn't be surprising that an elite meta would be ill prepared for a strong new MSU force". "The forthcoming codexes all handle Drukhari well". "people have barely had a second to adjust to a very different list archetype".

In other words...

By the nature of same books they will just happen to be stronger against others anyways, Knights and Votann are 2 very good examples of this.

You yourself are making the same point being made by the people you are disagreeing with.

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Designed with the next Edition in mind

long time since I heard that one from official source, 5th Edition Ork Codex was the last one?

Space marine 2.0 chapters. Designed with 9th edition in mind.

You'd have a point if they didn't release a Space Marine codex FOR 9th Edition LOL

Wasn't the whole Psychic Awakening series "written with 9th edition in mind"?

was there ever an official statement that it was written for 9th?
I can't really remember one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.

which is bullshot game design in the first place
as it should not be 1 army being rock but every army has rock, paper scissor available and the build you chose would be 1, 2 or all 3 of them

 kodos wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
It's that X archetype beats Y archetype which is beaten by Z archetype. A claim substantiated by comments made by Mike Brandt, Global Events Coordinator at Games Workshop.

which is bullshot game design in the first place
as it should not be 1 army being rock but every army has rock, paper scissor available and the build you chose would be 1, 2 or all 3 of them

So valid horde build knights/custodes and msu elite orks/guard yes? It's not possible for every archetype to exist in every book.

 Rihgu wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

This is not the same as saying "X codex beats Y codex on purpose"

What
How is that not the same

There is a difference in meta shifts and literally saying GW made a Codex to beat 1 other codex, GW expecting the meta to shift is literally not the same as making a codex to force the shift.

Fairly curious as to what the rules for Rock-Paper-Scissors are around your parts, as you seem to be playing a completely different version than I am familiar with. Of course, Brandt may be playing a yet different version as well, once we open up that can of worms.

If we assume the usual definition of Rock-Paper-Scissors, referring to an army as a Rock in a Scissors meta 100% is "making a codex to force the shift". They're expecting the meta to shift because it is a Scissors meta, and they have introduced a Rock codex. They are waiting on the Paper codices to make determinations as to potential imbalances within the Rock codex, because the initial response to the Rock codex was based on a Scissors meta. Of course a Rock codex is strong in a Scissors meta - Rock beats Scissors! If Rock beats Paper, that's when we'll have problems!

So to bring it back to my initial point when I entered this thread - if Transhuman-like abilities are Rock, Votann and their Judgement ability may be 100% intentional Paper. If the codex functions as that - is a hard counter to army lists leaning heavily on abilities with To Wound modifiers/caps, I don't foresee any nerfs happening as it's all working as intended. If the Judgement ability plays too strongly into "Scissors" codexes, then I could see a nerf happening in the future. My initial response was to somebody who seemed assured that a nerf was inevitable - I was merely pointing out that it isn't based on the apparent design philosophy as worded by playtesters and GW staff.

I think you missed my point, no where did he say DE was built to fight X army, or another army was built to fight DE,

Correct, and nobody was claiming that that was being said.

Yes people did

Karol wrote:
It was exactly what the testers told us players. To not worry about DE, because Ad mecha are even better and will reign them in.

I was talking about this type of mentality. They did NOT say Admech will reign them in, they said lets see how the meta goes first. I was making a correction bc no one of authority said Admech or any other army was made to beat another army.