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.

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.

Because they did say it. The "wait till you see ad mecha" was a thing Reece said to a point that I who do not follow all podcasts he is on, knew he said that.

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.

GW never needed any special reasons to make eldar powerful. And then they made books coming after that a "balancing factor" to them being powerful. And the next books coming out, which also were reigning DE in, were Ad Mecha and Orks. And when those two books got nerfed, while DE recived changes to a build type their were no longer using we suddenly got a DE rise up 2.0. When Custodes came out the same playtesters said that people should wait for upcoming books to balance the meta, and when the meta is custodes, then the only coming balance can be the coming books which were tyranids and eldar. And they did "balance" custodes all right.

Karol wrote:

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.

Because they did say it. The "wait till you see ad mecha" was a thing Reece said to a point that I who do not follow all podcasts he is on, knew he said that.

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.

GW never needed any special reasons to make eldar powerful. And then they made books coming after that a "balancing factor" to them being powerful. And the next books coming out, which also were reigning DE in, were Ad Mecha and Orks. And when those two books got nerfed, while DE recived changes to a build type their were no longer using we suddenly got a DE rise up 2.0. When Custodes came out the same playtesters said that people should wait for upcoming books to balance the meta, and when the meta is custodes, then the only coming balance can be the coming books which were tyranids and eldar. And they did "balance" custodes all right.

Show me where he said Admech will counter DE.

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

Not like elite Ork/Guard existed from the beginning, but there is a different with 1 army being limited in building into 1 branch out of 3, or 1 army having no counter to a specific build

1 army not having all archetypes is one thing, 1 army not being able to fight all archetypes another, and if 1 Codex is written to be the counter to another Codex, those are missing both

I think what is being missed here is that this Rock-Paper-Scissors thing is not a matter of codex design but of list design. Most codexes have optimal builds to deal with a certain types of list. You can build an anti-Knight or an Anti-Horde Space Marine list out of Codex Space Marines. The question is are either of those the best all around list you can build from Codex Space Marines?

At times, the most efficient list in a Codex is perfect for smashing a particular meta. However, that list will get smashed by a different meta. Remember how good some vehicle list were before Eradictors and other vehicle destroying units entered the game? Suddenly, vehicle list disappeared because the Rock to their Scissors appeared.

Drukhari list were perfect for destroying elite infantry list, which happened to be the meta. The meta was going to have to adjust to that fact. Some people with advanced knowledge of upcoming codexes also knew that some light infantry list were on the horizon. Drukhari would need to adjust to that as well.

Now this is no excuse for GW badly missing some balance points, but itself doesn't mean the game is badly designed or that some codexes were built to destroy others. The question is can a list be both good at doing its own thing while not being so deficient in other areas that is falls into lots of RPS scenarios?

I dunno, I would have interpreted "wait til you see ad mech" as "if you think Deldar are busted, just wait until you see Ad Mech, they're even worse", not "Ad Mech will counter Deldar and balance them through meta rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock".

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

Only the main dex.

For the chapters we are still using the 8th edition ones.

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

MSU elite orks do exist though, that's what buggies are, and guard can be fairly elite as well when they focus on mechanised infantry or bulgryin/ogryns.

What doesn't work is increasing every codex to have as many options as the big ones like orks, eldar or guard do. Knight or Harlequins or TS will never be able to have more than one or two archetypes with a lot of overlap between them.

Rock, paper, scissors wouldn't require them to have all the build archetypes, imho. It would just need to be able to deal with them by having load outs that are anti-hoard, anti-elite, and anti-tank. Critical for this to work is that they can't all be on the same unit (or at least not at the same time). That way you create situations where a unit might not be in the proper position when it's needed (or you may not have included it at all).

"Custodes are not broken, they are a club in a meta full of seals."

Sorry but the idea DE countered the SM meta due to archetype design is incredibly dubious. They countered it (and everything else then in the game) because almost every unit was 10-20% too cheap. Which is why GW eventually ended up hiking most units in the codex (except wracks, for inexplicable reasons - and no, I don't think getting the money from the dozen competitive players who bought 150~ wracks counts as a logical reason.)

Which is basically the issue. 40k is very rarely sufficiently balanced for archetype versus archetype to be the thing. Its that faction X is playing a 2k game with 2400 points - with all the advantages that brings. Could be Harlequins, Daemons or Marines. Could be DE, Ad Mech, Buggy Spam. Could be Custodes, Tau, Harlequins, Tyranids. Some skewing can help here (like how everyone tried to take units to kill Voidweavers) - but at a certain point quantity has a quality all its own.

Drukhari being the rock to paper meta isnt a conspiracy.

They meant that the current meta was at the moment centered on killing elite infantry and bringing elite infantry. When drukhari came out, all the typical weapons that were in the meta became worse because of invuln and high mobility. And at the same time, dark lances just were the apex predators to elite stuff.

Their comment can be explained like this :

Imagine if the meta is only spamming lascannons
new codex comes out and it supports horde armies

now lascannons are bad against that codex but still good against the others, so people have to adjust and find a decent balance of lascannons and bolters in their lists.
Thats what they meant by "wait and see"

Spoletta 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

Only the main dex.

For the chapters we are still using the 8th edition ones.

Supplements don't count when the core of your rules is not there.

Numbers time.

Four Bolt Cannons - 2x S6 AP2 D2
Heavy Magna Rail - 1x S14 AP4 2D3+6
MATR AC - 6x S7 AP2 D2

The Scanner allows it to ignore light cover.

I would do this in Unit Crunch, but the spillover mechanic

Let's shoot some Scarabs:

BC - 8 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.74
HMR - 1 * .833 * .167 * 10 = 1.39
AC - 6 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.56

Scarabs with -1D might lose a model. That's in a scenario where the Rail rolls a 6 to wound to spill over. This is, of course, average numbers. In the situation where the MR actually rolls a 6 to wound you'd see 3 terminators off plus a negligible amount from the secondaries.

If it doesn't roll a 6 you would kill a single terminator. So that's it. Either it kills three at 14%, one at 56%, or zero at 30% of the time. Maybe you'll scratch a fourth with the other guns depending on the type of terminator you shoot.

Three over two turns will kill 8 to 10 terminators or 5 a turn. That's <= 200 points a turn killed by ~1000 ( if you brought Iron Masters for all 3, but no one will likely do this ).

Then there are the tokens gained by

- killing squats
- doing an action
- being on an objective -- this is ONE unit each turn
- being visible to a Kahl

Since hitting on a 4 means ( 3 tokens ) it counts as wounding on a 6 it could amp up the fortresses pretty fast. How does one deal with this?

Don't do actions with your terminators and don't use them to finish off units. Don't make them plainly visible to a Kahl ( one per detachment ) *in his command phase* who has a 5" move. In other words you can actively avoid being seen and the squats have no recourse to see you and put a token on.

Consider running 5 man terminators as that requires more tokens and they are less visible. Otherwise the primary method of token gain is probably going to be killing their units so plan on throw-away mop up units.

This is more a problem for big stuff that can't hide as they're going to get blasted.

I was able to simulate the real world effect of the tokens by putting a condition of the weapon dealing mortal wounds on 6s to wound to effect spill over.

I was able to model this in unit crunch against basic terminators with AoC ( only the Magna Rail ):

All graphs are % chance to kill that number of models.

Is it safe to say you've at best skim read the codex?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Numbers time.

Four Bolt Cannons - 2x S6 AP2 D2
Heavy Magna Rail - 1x S14 AP4 2D3+6
MATR AC - 6x S7 AP2 D2

The Scanner allows it to ignore light cover.

I would do this in Unit Crunch, but the spillover mechanic

Let's shoot some Scarabs:

BC - 8 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.74
HMR - 1 * .833 * .167 * 10 = 1.39
AC - 6 * .833 * .666 * .167 = 0.56

Scarabs with -1D might lose a model. That's in a scenario where the Rail rolls a 6 to wound to spill over. This is, of course, average numbers. In the situation where the MR actually rolls a 6 to wound you'd see 3 terminators off plus a negligible amount from the secondaries.

If it doesn't roll a 6 you would kill a single terminator. So that's it. Either it kills three at 14%, one at 56%, or zero at 30% of the time. Maybe you'll scratch a fourth with the other guns depending on the type of terminator you shoot.

Three over two turns will kill 8 to 10 terminators or 5 a turn. That's <= 200 points a turn killed by ~1000 ( if you brought Iron Masters for all 3, but no one will likely do this ).

Then there are the tokens gained by

- killing squats
- doing an action
- being on an objective -- this is ONE unit each turn
- being visible to a Kahl

Since hitting on a 4 means ( 3 tokens ) it counts as wounding on a 6 it could amp up the fortresses pretty fast. How does one deal with this?

Don't do actions with your terminators and don't use them to finish off units. Don't make them plainly visible to a Kahl ( one per detachment ) *in his command phase* who has a 5" move. In other words you can actively avoid being seen and the squats have no recourse to see you and put a token on.

Consider running 5 man terminators as that requires more tokens and they are less visible. Otherwise the primary method of token gain is probably going to be killing their units so plan on throw-away mop up units.

This is more a problem for big stuff that can't hide as they're going to get blasted.

I was able to simulate the real world effect of the tokens by putting a condition of the weapon dealing mortal wounds on 6s to wound to effect spill over.

I was able to model this in unit crunch against basic terminators with AoC ( only the Magna Rail ):

All graphs are % chance to kill that number of models.

Heck I played against BT the other night, so my ignore light cover didn't matter, and they all had a 5++ too, my 2 Hekatons did the least amount of damage out of all my units that I expected to deal serious damage (the others where Champ, Hearthguard and Beserks). The Hearthguard and Beserks won me the game, the Hekatons was better as a delivery system for them, I could have never shot my to Hekatons and the game would have been the same. They did how every pull an insane amount of fire power letting my Troops do what troops do and being able to get my HG/Serks into position without getting hurt. AoC on -2 and -3ap really made it feel week. Against CWE the Magna is only -ap, if you wanted to kill a Wave serpent, well they can Fate dice the save on a 6+.

I think they army is going to be good yes, but not OP like we have been seeing. I would put them above marines and below Nids, Quins, CWE, with the ability to hard counter Necrons, Knights, Custodes.

Looking at the stats/rules on these LoV railguns, they just seem weird. They ignore invuls, so force fields, daemonic/Warp based powers, dodge/jink saves.....all of those it gets past. But with AP-4, in a game now filled with AoC 2+ armour, the armour has a chance to stop them? How does that make sense? I mean, a Leviathan's shields can't stop it, but it's armour can? Do the rules writers even know what the purpose of having an invulnerable save to back up your armour save is?

I really can't wait for the "fluff" explanation for how these things work. Assuming that they're even trying to come up with and stick to fluff for any game mechanics anymore.

The consequence of not differentiating armor from armored targets, and excessive stats creep for a mechanic which is and would be better , but only if the designers use moderation.
Add to that lackluster wounding mechanics and overcompensation through invuls which leads to overcompensation again, etc etc et all, and we are back on square one with the suspension of disbelieve severly damaged.

This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book seems a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.

Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.

LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.

LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.

Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

Noooooo GW changed! They have social media now!

 oni wrote:
Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OP AF, sell the pulp out of it, then do one of two things...
1. Dial it back in an FAQ or address it in the worst thing GW has ever conceived, the Balance Dataslate (the thinly veiled attempt to assuage the competitive cancer slowly killing the whole organism). -OR-
2. Leave it be because they intended it to further devolve the edition as they plan to blow it all up and sell us a whole new "greatest edition ever".

When GW puts its sales strategy on blatant display like this, it also makes it obvious why the player-base distrusts the rules writers / design team.

This practice is what Kirby always alluded to when he would state that GW is a "model company" and not a game company. One has to read between the lines so to speak. The only thing that's changed within GW from Kirby to Roundtree is that Roundtree seems to be motivated to perfect the deceit and its concealment.

I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.

LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.

Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Your argument boils down to "they had a more broken unit so other broken unit didn't get used until other broken unit was reigned in, checkmate!

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.

LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.

Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Your argument boils down to "they had a more broken unit so other broken unit didn't get used until other broken unit was reigned in, checkmate!

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1. The point is the hammerhead wasn't and to my knowledge hasn't really been touched with a direct nerf or even a points change? So should still be broken OP and reigning hell on people. Except it isn't.

If the Land Fortress isn't the best unit out the gates, if it isn't appearing with large frequency until other units get shuffled, then it's clearly not as bad as people are making out to be one way or the other.

Your argument here is "ner ner it placed in a tiny number of tournaments 6 months later, after the good stuff got nerfed" which doesn't really make the hammerhead sound like the top of the pile alpha threat it was made out to be.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I really can't wait for the "fluff" explanation for how these things work. Assuming that they're even trying to come up with and stick to fluff for any game mechanics anymore.

Bold of you to assume that the people writing these rules give a gak about the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I honestly think it is more likely GW doesn't have any (good) QA.

Or when QA suggests changes, Cruddace rages out that someone has the temerity to challenge his perfect designs.

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I really can't wait for the "fluff" explanation for how these things work. Assuming that they're even trying to come up with and stick to fluff for any game mechanics anymore.

Bold of you to assume that the people writing these rules give a gak about the fluff.

I understand that some abstraction is required for a functional game but yeah, 40k as been jarringly out of line with its own fluff of late This is the worst its been in my memory.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This thread smacks of the "4 Hammerhead lists will be everywhere and wrecking people" version of earlier this year. By all accounts the book sesem a touch too strong but there's enough levers etc they can pull to reign it in if needed.

First point of action, the tokens all granting a "wounds on a natural 6" can be swapped for "wounds on the same value as the hit roll", immediately sorting out the rail weapons.

LMAO buddy you are still on that Hammerhead kick? I'm sure you were under a rock when it happened but successful Tau lists *did transition to 4x Hammerhead lists* for awhile there before the whole faction dropped out of the top tier due to larger (i.e. Nephilim) meta changes. Take the L, pick a new thing to harp on.

And to not be completely off topic, I do really like your judgement token suggestion.

Regardless if that one thing is correct or not (oh yeah, big L for it having about a 3 week window of validity 6 months after the book came out), the point is there's often some hyperbolic gak scared post about the new book coming out that makes people assume their game is broken for life. Often its a simple fix or actually not that bad as shown here, I doubt triple land balloons will rocking genuine top tables, there's worse things in there.

Your argument boils down to "they had a more broken unit so other broken unit didn't get used until other broken unit was reigned in, checkmate!

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.

The point I'm making (or trying to) is that there's a semi-regular knee jerk "most broken unit ever" thread that appears before we know all the information, or before it's hit the table at the least. The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

If it was broken enough to warrant a full thread discussing it, much the same as this one, it would be relevant from day 1.

The reason it's not as relevant so to speak is because the army isn't even out yet. Tau have been around for years, and on top of that we got the WarCom article talking about how coolawesome the new Railgun was.

So no shocker that the even more broken aspects of the Tau codex overshadowed it. You're not making the point you think you are.

The point I'm making (or trying to) is that there's a semi-regular knee jerk "most broken unit ever" thread that appears before we know all the information, or before it's hit the table at the least. The majority of the time people just buy into and regurgitate forum/media hype on the unit until they're adamant it's the end of the game and are then willing to die on that hill.

I'm fairly certain Votann are introducing some mechanics and ideas that will definitely need a rethink, but frankly the "problem unit" likely isn't going to be this one, it's just (like the hammerhead) visually shocking to see.

Problem units are problem units, regardless if there's even MORE problem units, yes or no?

Who said it was the most broken unit?