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.
oni wrote: Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OPAF, 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.
Cj4594 wrote: My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
oni wrote: Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OPAF, 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.
Or they dont listen to them.
Good QA would make sure they'd be listened to, so the comment about QA probably not even existing is correct.
oni wrote: Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OPAF, 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.
Or they dont listen to them.
Good QA would make sure they'd be listened to, so the comment about QA probably not even existing is correct.
Working in/around that world it isn't always possible, I've attended meetings where QA have outright said "no don't release this, the risks are too high" only to be met with "no, we will, but we'll make it sound like it's at the customers own risk but they don't have a choice" type responses by the bean counting stakeholders. Inevitably you then get the ner ner told you so a few months later when it goes wrong, but money beats QA a lot of the time.
I don't want to be that guy, but if we are doing theoretical freakouts, are we soft-selling it because we are focusing on Terminators? AoC 2+ versus AP4 is still a 5+.
The issue I'd have thought is that there are various other things in the game that aren't running 2+ AOC style saves. And "oh look I roll a 4+, you take 8-12 AP-4 ignore invul wounds that spill over... oh that's [whatever elite unit] dead".
I guess you can say MSU all the way down, but it feels like you are fairly reliably going to pick up units costing 150~ points. Which would be solid at 230 points even if you didn't also have all the smaller arms, which seems likely to contribute something.
Yes spot on, the master misinformator did cherry pick one of the best profiles to defend against the magna-rails and then of course designed a scenario where there were no judgement tokens to help his "analysis".
2~3 judgement tokens are fantastic into:
High toughness models (Knights, other vehicles, Greater Daemons, other monsters).
Models with transhuman.
Models with no wound re-rolls or -1 to wound.
The army also has access to a good amount of mortal wounds in the shooting phase (which is what you will want to use against 2+ AoC targets).
Votann do look like a repeat of release AdMech in that they are just too cheap and have too easy access to strats/buffs to take them over the top.
oni wrote: Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OPAF, 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.
40K is probably at it's most balanced point ever.
40K's biggest problem is the organized chaos of fixes needed to get them out of a terrible codex release system.
Making a balanced army in a huge and growing number of factions isn't simple. Necrons who have really good secondaries and mountains of buffs still do not dominate. GSC who got nothing still do well and temporarily broke 65% last weekend. And perhaps only due to the 2" charge rule, which was removed. The game is a sum of its parts - not just what kills stuff really well.
Votann is a terribly small book and suffers the same syndrome as Harlequins where you need to pack all the functions into few units. It's overtuned, but not to the degree of being busted, in my opinion. I'm more interested in the impact of the beam weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EightFoldPath wrote: Yes spot on, the master misinformator did cherry pick one of the best profiles to defend against the magna-rails and then of course designed a scenario where there were no judgement tokens to help his "analysis".
2~3 judgement tokens are fantastic into:
High toughness models (Knights, other vehicles, Greater Daemons, other monsters).
Models with transhuman.
Models with no wound re-rolls or -1 to wound.
The army also has access to a good amount of mortal wounds in the shooting phase (which is what you will want to use against 2+ AoC targets).
Votann do look like a repeat of release AdMech in that they are just too cheap and have too easy access to strats/buffs to take them over the top.
And yet the data is there for tokens as well as discussion points around application of tokens. Also, the -1D is almost negligible to the total output and I gave straight terminator stats in the graphs from unit crunch.
The assertion of bias just tells me people continue to refuse to actually read and engage points.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/14 12:49:25
GSC did get a 65% win rate, but that's off 7 players, one of which won that Australian tournament going 5-0. So feels kind of skewed. But clearly the potential is there, in a way it wasn't seemingly before. (Although there were a few players still putting in good runs.)
As people say, it may be that the Squats are kind of busted in terms of the maths - but if their scoring potential isn't great, they just aren't going to be pushing an early-2022 busted codex win%. I don't know what data to pull up to prove it, but I feel the secondary changes have made the factions a lot flatter.
(Not sure it means much, but I am also enjoying how Creations of Bile seems to be showing up as the go-to CSM faction, which was my pick of the book, while some of the more pro-scene was obsessing over BL & WB. Sadly expect there will be (and possibly should be) nerfs down the track.)
But much like Tau Railguns, just because the competitive tournament scene looks like one thing, doesn't mean something can't be very toxic in a more casual space.
I think the worst part about casual is the learning curve. To be good you have to learn so much and take on all these layers of rules. People who opt out have an easier time learning, but a potentially worse experience.
It's certainly a quagmire that will be up in the air with 10th.
Tyel wrote: GSC did get a 65% win rate, but that's off 7 players, one of which won that Australian tournament going 5-0. So feels kind of skewed. But clearly the potential is there, in a way it wasn't seemingly before. (Although there were a few players still putting in good runs.)
As people say, it may be that the Squats are kind of busted in terms of the maths - but if their scoring potential isn't great, they just aren't going to be pushing an early-2022 busted codex win%. I don't know what data to pull up to prove it, but I feel the secondary changes have made the factions a lot flatter.
(Not sure it means much, but I am also enjoying how Creations of Bile seems to be showing up as the go-to CSM faction, which was my pick of the book, while some of the more pro-scene was obsessing over BL & WB. Sadly expect there will be (and possibly should be) nerfs down the track.)
But much like Tau Railguns, just because the competitive tournament scene looks like one thing, doesn't mean something can't be very toxic in a more casual space.
LoV are terrible at most secondaries, they do have a strong going for Grind.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think the worst part about casual is the learning curve. To be good you have to learn so much and take on all these layers of rules. People who opt out have an easier time learning, but a potentially worse experience.
It's certainly a quagmire that will be up in the air with 10th.
I guess it depends what aspect of casual you are looking at.
I.E. I know we've had people on the forums who just don't play with chapter tactics, super doctrines and stratagems etc.
Which feels... really weird to me - but sure. I guess it reduces the mental load of remembering all these things.
But I know plenty of people who play "casual 40k" to be more like "old school 40k". I.E. don't care about secondaries. Or sometimes even really primaries. Just push models aggressively across the table, roll some dice, the player with the most left after 5 turns "wins" - but no one really cares about "winning the game", its just about being entertained for a few hours. Which I think is where power imbalances can show up and why lethality was (kinda still is) such an issue. Because the damage outcome of a game where both sides run at each other is very different to one where you try to keep everything behind L-shaped ruins when its not serving an objective purpose.
So in the case of here, someone showing up with 3 Hekatons, rolling a 4, 5 and 5, and going "yeah, sorry, that's a quarter of your army dead", doesn't "feel" good. And equally doesn't feel so unlikely, that you will see it on tables all over the world. Which is basically how it felt (and still feels tbh) with Tau Railguns. The fact that loads of armies can pull off this sort of lethality make mean its balanced - but not fun.
40K's biggest problem is the organized chaos of fixes needed to get them out of a terrible codex release system.
Making a balanced army in a huge and growing number of factions isn't simple. Necrons who have really good secondaries and mountains of buffs still do not dominate. GSC who got nothing still do well and temporarily broke 65% last weekend. And perhaps only due to the 2" charge rule, which was removed. The game is a sum of its parts - not just what kills stuff really well.
Votann is a terribly small book and suffers the same syndrome as Harlequins where you need to pack all the functions into few units. It's overtuned, but not to the degree of being busted, in my opinion. I'm more interested in the impact of the beam weapons.
Claiming now is the most balanced 40k has ever been feels...off...(I won't go so far as to claim it's factually incorrect, because I don't know for sure)...among my personal gaming group back in the day, 40k felt pretty good balance-wise back in 2009ish 5th edition (we had a couple of Tau armies, an eldar army, an imperial guard army, a space marine army, a necron army, and an ork army floating around among the five of us...so maybe we got lucky). Maybe (probably) it's just because I only play Imperial Guard these days that things feel horribly out of balance still.
I'd agree with this being the most balanced it's been in the past year or two (which I think is probably what you were going for), although I'd also have to slap a mighty big asterisk on that. This assumes you're playing Nephilim mission packs. If you're playing Tempest, then suddenly having easy secondaries aren't able to drag the win rate up. There's also, of course, the issue of internal balance, which is something tourney win rates can't really reflect, but that's nothing new and not really the point I'm trying to address.
I guess what I'm getting at is, for a codex to be fully balanced (externally at least) it needs to be balanced in multiple formats and across multiple battle sizes (I have suspicions that Imperial Guard do particularly poorly at the 1250pts my group currently prefers). Squats being good or bad at objective play and making up for it in shooting or defense is all well and good. The squats having bad faction objectives and making up for it in shooting or defense is problematic as there are formats where you don't use the faction objectives. I haven't taken a close look at the leaked codex, so I'm not sure which version of bad objective play it is.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/09/14 17:14:29
As much as I like the faction specific secondaries they alone are quite a mental load.
If GW could make terrain a little easier to "get right" without everything being ruins and scoring more accessible to casual games it would likely improve the experience for most people.
Cj4594 wrote: My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?
Cj4594 wrote: My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?
Nobody ever said most broken unit ever beyond in hyperbolic satire, just that it's the most broken unit in the book. There's a few comments on how it's too good that don't draw direct comparison to the rest of the game however so not impossible some feel it is.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.
Dudeface wrote: 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.
Hey man, reasonable takes are not allowed here. You're supposed to screech about your faction being bad, or someone else's faction being broken.
Better yet, screech about an unreleased faction being broken. That way no one can prove you wrong.
Tyel wrote: I don't want to be that guy, but if we are doing theoretical freakouts, are we soft-selling it because we are focusing on Terminators? AoC 2+ versus AP4 is still a 5+.
The issue I'd have thought is that there are various other things in the game that aren't running 2+ AOC style saves. And "oh look I roll a 4+, you take 8-12 AP-4 ignore invul wounds that spill over... oh that's [whatever elite unit] dead".
I guess you can say MSU all the way down, but it feels like you are fairly reliably going to pick up units costing 150~ points. Which would be solid at 230 points even if you didn't also have all the smaller arms, which seems likely to contribute something.
Yup. They really need to give Meganobz a 5+ FnP for their medical squig .
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.
What other metric would you use?
The problem with balance is that its always to some extent in the eye of the beholder. 40k was the most balanced "for me" in early 3rd edition, when I was about 12-14, playing mostly with a bunch of other 12-14 year olds, who had, as a consequence, extremely casual/highlander/white dwarfesque armies, and little scope to do much about it. I suspect most editions would have felt fairly balanced in such a meta where most armies contained a good number of their "bad" units, and most players were probably quite poor.
When 5th rolled out I was in my early 20s, playing with people in their early 20s. Most of us have jobs (not necesarilly good ones, but jobs all the same) and if we want to splash the cash, we can - and some did so. The meta unsurprisingly becomes far sharper. If you are playing a "weak book" - and worse still, have a "weak list" from said book, the game moves to be borderline unplayable. Or I guess like playing Guard for most of the last few years.
Throughout most of 40k history, the competitive scene has tended to be dominated by a handful of factions - that are just mathematically better than the rest. Any period where this doesn't seem the case - since you've got lots of different factions placing - would seem well balanced by comparison.
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.
What other metric would you use?
The problem with balance is that its always to some extent in the eye of the beholder. 40k was the most balanced "for me" in early 3rd edition, when I was about 12-14, playing mostly with a bunch of other 12-14 year olds, who had, as a consequence, extremely casual/highlander/white dwarfesque armies, and little scope to do much about it. I suspect most editions would have felt fairly balanced in such a meta where most armies contained a good number of their "bad" units, and most players were probably quite poor.
When 5th rolled out I was in my early 20s, playing with people in their early 20s. Most of us have jobs (not necesarilly good ones, but jobs all the same) and if we want to splash the cash, we can - and some did so. The meta unsurprisingly becomes far sharper. If you are playing a "weak book" - and worse still, have a "weak list" from said book, the game moves to be borderline unplayable. Or I guess like playing Guard for most of the last few years.
Throughout most of 40k history, the competitive scene has tended to be dominated by a handful of factions - that are just mathematically better than the rest. Any period where this doesn't seem the case - since you've got lots of different factions placing - would seem well balanced by comparison.
As a semi-tangent, this is actually an interesting line of thought.
A fair few Dakkanauts will have grown up with 40K. Not necessarily “There From Day One”, but certainly 2nd/3rd onward. And like yourself, when we started out we were typically playing against peers of similarly restricted income. And so armies would’ve tended to be What We’ve Got, over What We Wanted.
But as we grew up, jobs brought salaries, salaries bought toys. Suddenly that squad we’d need to have foregone sweets for a few weeks to buy was completely affordable. And we could add to armies, or start entirely new armies more or less on a whim.
This is a thread unto itself I think. I’ll gather my thoughts and get it started.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Its also army dependent, each edition had armies way out of balance and if you didn't play one of those or anyone in your local that did you might never have seen the problem bc the internet didn't talk about it much back then.
Amishprn86 wrote: Its also army dependent, each edition had armies way out of balance and if you didn't play one of those or anyone in your local that did you might never have seen the problem bc the internet didn't talk about it much back then.
The internet of the time talked about it plenty.
You evidently weren't where most of the discussions were being had.
Amishprn86 wrote: Its also army dependent, each edition had armies way out of balance and if you didn't play one of those or anyone in your local that did you might never have seen the problem bc the internet didn't talk about it much back then.
The internet of the time talked about it plenty. You evidently weren't where most of the discussions were being had.
There is a HUGE difference in "talking" and have the events listed with 1000's of games as data. Almost no one listed many of the events lists before 7th, 6th started it and only a few of the top events and only 2-3 of the top lists. The top list from 3rd through 5th was mostly copy and past hearsay unless you were lucky to have 3++, or a niche faction server post it. Yes people talked, yes people said GKs were broken in 5th, CSM in 3rd, or Nids in 4th, but we had no idea how bad it was (if it even was that bad or just bullied the average player), or any proof other than antidotal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/15 19:33:03
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.
What other metric would you use?
I use Sub Faction and unit appearance.
Tyranids used to get tops with their absolutely horrendous 6th edition codex due to Flyrant power, but I don't think most people would say that codex was the pinnacle of smart codex writing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Though Sub Faction matters less thanks to GW doing the smart thing and piling Special Snowflake Marine chapters into the main codex, but it's important to look at regardless if you use Your Dudes (TM) or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/15 20:50:01
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.
Also a fair statement. For me it's the ability for people to bring an army of their choosing and have a good chance at success given similar skill. Obviously there's tons of complicating factors and rabbit holes to go down that makes such statements not so simple.
Cj4594 wrote: My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?
Nobody ever said most broken unit ever beyond in hyperbolic satire, just that it's the most broken unit in the book. There's a few comments on how it's too good that don't draw direct comparison to the rest of the game however so not impossible some feel it is.
I feel like there is a disconnect between this and what you posted earlier:
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.
If hyperbole is bad, why use it yourself? If it isn't, why fault others for using it?
It's a strange metric of balance (tourney wins is usually what's cited), and the methods to achieve the "balance" are so off putting that the statement isn't really indicative of quality.
Also a fair statement. For me it's the ability for people to bring an army of their choosing and have a good chance at success given similar skill. Obviously there's tons of complicating factors and rabbit holes to go down that makes such statements not so simple.
I don't disagree, but with tournament data the problem is that the stuff which is bad just doesn't get played. The good stuff is easy to judge, because it pops up all the time, and it beats other stuff which is also good. It is , aside for a simple they are bad, hard to judge something like Crimson Fists, when there is little to no data on them. Not that little data can't say something about a list. Ad mecha are like that. An army which was popular and played a lot. Got "balanced" by GW, and now only a small group of people know how to play and win with them, while everyone else loses while playing the army.
It is telling though that in Nachtmund the balance state was achived by pairing the top over the top and under costed armies with armies that play soliter and require minimal interaction with the opposing army to win. And it is telling when armies like eldar are being called worse by top players, only because unlike necron, they do not have free secondaries anymore.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
oni wrote: Another case of GW's sales strategy on display. Make the initial release OPAF, 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.
Or they dont listen to them.
Actually according to insiders this codex never went to play testers because they didn't want it leaked (fair enough because everything would have leaked months early). But considering most codexes that have come out recently have been relatively balanced im prone to believe that this wont be well balanced because it didn't go through the testing that established codexes do
Actually according to insiders this codex never went to play testers because they didn't want it leaked (fair enough because everything would have leaked months early). But considering most codexes that have come out recently have been relatively balanced im prone to believe that this wont be well balanced because it didn't go through the testing that established codexes do
Cj4594 wrote: My buddy played with the leaked rules for Leagues of Votaan using Age of Sigmar models to proxy the various models. Nothing in the army really stood out as "broken" except one: The Hekaton Land Fortress. It's massively undercosted for what it is.
"Broken" =/= "most broken unit ever." Who claimed it was the most broken unit?
Nobody ever said most broken unit ever beyond in hyperbolic satire, just that it's the most broken unit in the book. There's a few comments on how it's too good that don't draw direct comparison to the rest of the game however so not impossible some feel it is.
I feel like there is a disconnect between this and what you posted earlier:
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.
If hyperbole is bad, why use it yourself? If it isn't, why fault others for using it?
I didn't? I'm really not sure where you're going with this, my point was there's fairly often a thread about a unit/weapon/strat/faction is way too OP and inevitably draws attention stating that the game isn't playable, or is too unhealthy, other people can't compete etc.
That's literally what this thread is founded on, that there is one unit that's so far removed from balanced it becomes an obstacle to the game. You can dress up or down that statement with as much or little hyperbolic garnish as you see fit.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
