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.

Hecaton wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?

Yup, it's *real* dumb. GW needs to slow down the power creep or else they'll start bleeding players. The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.

The TO response to those complaining isn't just "Git gud?"

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Yet again just power creep. I'm already notcing that in this post AoC codex AP is creeping up by 1 more than expected. Power axe equivalents are AP3, plasma gun equivalents AP4, heavy bolter equivalents are AP 2 etc. Is it a one off for the dwarves or a sign of what to expect in the next Space Marine codex?

Yup, it's *real* dumb. GW needs to slow down the power creep or else they'll start bleeding players. The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.

The TO response to those complaining isn't just "Git gud?"

No. This isn't Infinity, you can't outsmart broken rules.

This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

No. And it's not "their" players, players would be coming from all over.

 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

Hecaton wrote:
The local TOs are talking about banning Votann at release, I haven't heard that in a while.

We've had that discussion floating around a few times this edition, I think Tyranids were the last time it came up.

The usual TO requirement is that a book needs to be released x days ahead of the tournament which is usually 7~14 depending on list submission deadlines. My view has always been that TOs should push it out to 4~6 weeks to allow for a FAQ for every book. Although it would have been a shame for a few recent codexes like CSM as they were healthy enough to go straight away. Hopefully if enough TOs band together and make it clear they have to ban new books due to their shoddy writing it could filter upwards to the money men. Anything that could hurt their carefully manufactured FOMO might get an actual response.

I think a limited edition release like this does give a bit of cover to TOs, as even if they don't outright ban the codex, they can at least have a no model no rules policy of disallowing conversions for some of the units.

A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

So how would people fix this book?

It seems like making JT's act like Markerlights doesn't fix anything since that first shot will probably be the HLF so removing the token after the unit is dead seems moot.

Points will have ceiling so it has to be rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Both of those things happen at tournaments. You get people just enjoying the hobby and you have the ultra competitive types. It just sometimes depends on the bracket you fall into, but almost universally everyone I play is a good opponent regardless of their slant.

My FLGS has a yearly tournament where hobby is really the focus - the paint score is crucial to best overall and there's a lore quiz for extra points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So how would people fix this book?

It seems like making JT's act like Markerlights doesn't fix anything since that first shot will probably be the HLF so removing the token after the unit is dead seems moot.

Points will have ceiling so it has to be rules.

Id say probably just change the bonus that JT's give. Something like
1 Token "reroll failed 1s to hit on the unit"
2 Tokens "Reroll failed 1s and +1 strength"
3 Tokens "reroll failed 1s, +1 strength and 6s auto would"
Just making straight 6s,5s,4s auto would break the math of the game too much. Obviously, I just came up with my example in like 2 seconds and whatever it needs to be checked for balance but even with 0 playtesters, I don't see how someone could see 4s auto wounding and think that was a good idea.

That would make the beam weapons really bad, because the LoV can't get enough of them on the table to reliably get enough 6+ rolls to clear objective takers each turn, and with their speed and only one fast unit, they have to do it, because if they don't they will lose the game to any army with good or even decent secondaries, and there are a few of those. Would make them as powerful as GSC, an army with a gimick that doesn't help the army win within the meta that exists right now. if the marks were to work like that their model line would have to get different stats on some units, and that won't happen till they get a new book in 10th.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

It is, because it's giving a pass to the current 40k rules "writers". In fact, I'd more than encourage anyone thinking about purchasing the new Squats to refrain from doing so until GW gets their act together.

 oni wrote:
A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

I think there is shame and disgrace aplenty, but it isn't for TOs and tournament players, it is 100% for the rules writers. Most tournament players just want a wide range of interesting factions with roughly the same power level to play against. You want to go home and be able to say, that was cool, I played A, B, C, D and E faction this weekend, haven't seen B and D in a while and E was an interesting take on their codex.

GWs habit of creating new codexes that ignore the current power level of what currently exists ruins that experience.

I'm quite happy to look at the new LoV models in a one off game down at the FLGS, but just as with Space Marines 2.0 I don't want to play in a single day first green marines/dwarves game 1, then black marines/dwarves game 2 and finally yellow marines/dwarves game 3.

 oni wrote:
A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

If GW released Cultists that had Assault Cannons standard in the whole squad but were still 5 points per model, would that be okay because you like how they look?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

It is, because it's giving a pass to the current 40k rules "writers". In fact, I'd more than encourage anyone thinking about purchasing the new Squats to refrain from doing so until GW gets their act together.

Depends why people are buying them

I agree though, banning them is worse than promoting people abstaining

 oni wrote:
A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

Well events can focus on collective enjoyment if GW is undermining that with shoddy rules writing. Blame GW, not the TOs who are merely *discussing* ways to make the game more fair and therefore fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Depends why people are buying them

I agree though, banning them is worse than promoting people abstaining

Banning them sends the strongest message, but like I said, I've only heard discussion of that so far.

Why weren't the other armies banned then? LoV at least have bad sides. At their high time armies like harlis, DE or Ad mecha practicaly had no bad sides. Necron right now are playing a soliter, you have to play a few specific armies and have a specific build to counter them, and then the list doesn't work well against anyone else.

Karol wrote:
Why weren't the other armies banned then? LoV at least have bad sides. At their high time armies like harlis, DE or Ad mecha practicaly had no bad sides. Necron right now are playing a soliter, you have to play a few specific armies and have a specific build to counter them, and then the list doesn't work well against anyone else.

Other armies did get banned at local tourney level. It's why I actually didn't encounter certain armies at their peak, like Iron Hands with the 8th edition supplement.

So how would people fix this book?

It seems like making JT's act like Markerlights doesn't fix anything since that first shot will probably be the HLF so removing the token after the unit is dead seems moot.

Points will have ceiling so it has to be rules.

Seems like it should be pretty easy, really.

1 Judgement token - re-roll all misses
2 Judgement tokens - 6's auto-wound, re-roll all misses
3 Judgement tokens - 5's and 6's auto-wound but no re-rolls.

I don't know what kind of a bizzaro place people would ban space marines from tournaments. But again, no one was banning DE or harlequins and they were broken for months in the game. Ad mecha were broken and an anti DE faction on top of everything. I don't remember people saying that all eldar or tyranids should be banned from being played till GW fixs those armies, because if that was the case we would be waiting till today for it.

LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition, same way 2.0 marines were and people seem to be doing the same thing they wanted to back then. Nerf a faction they don't play to adjust them to an edition which is soon be gone. Well GW did that in 8th with marines, and what did that gave us? Most marines being unplayable the entire edition or at best under performing. What is suppose to happen now, GW is suppose to hard nerf LoV, and leave them "balanced" for 9th ed and bad for 10th when same style armies start getting new books, and then people that start LoV can wait anywhere between a few months to a few years to get an update. Just in order people who already got books and updates this edition have fun playin at the very end of it? That is crazy. Not to mention LoV being on their first wave of releases, first codex and a totaly new faction. With bad rules they would share the fate of armies like GSC.

Second option - GW fire the current clowns and we try some new rules writers in 10th.

 oni wrote:
A codex moratorium is standard.

That banning's are even discussed shows how competitive play is cancer to W40K. It's disgraceful.

How about the novel idea that events focus on an experience and collective enjoyment of the hobby we share rather than a divisive, self aggrandizing competition.

Wouldn't it be nice if the first thought were; excitement to see the new LoV models, the color schemes and armies people came up with. Rather than "Ban LoV, they're too OP and will hurt my own chances of winning this tournament."

fething pathetic and shameful.

Lov is going to struggle to find opponents unless they self nerf anyway. Boiing roflstomps that are foregone conclusion are boring. When there's no reason to bother putting models out as they aren't needed...

Colour schemes can Be enjoyed without game. But with totally broken army there's no game to be enjoyed. You get same result but better by showing photos and roll dice just for sake of rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Second option - GW fire the current clowns and we try some new rules writers in 10th.

Too late by now. 10th rules too far ahead to change.

Karol wrote:


LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition,

What possible reason do you have to say that? Just to stir the po3y instead of admitting that GW's balance sucks?

Gw doesn't write codexes with new edition in mind as is. Last book of edition is just as big need of errataes and faq's in new ed as usual.

It's marketing speech for guillible people.

Probably the first batch of 10th books and the core rules for the edition are already done. When you look at LoV, you look at how according to GW 10th is suppose to work. The same way 2.0 marines were a hallmark of how 9th was suppose to be.

So if changes were to be made, we would have a batch of books with a design team with a different mind set. And then it is a dice roll who would have it better. Or we have to wait till mid 10th or 11th ed.

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:


LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition,

What possible reason do you have to say that? Just to stir the po3y instead of admitting that GW's balance sucks?

I've wondered this, the new weapon type and fixed advances seem like something they might try out. Likewise its contemporary peer is IG who also have an auto wound mechanic assuming it stays. Might be nothing but some odd choices otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it's dishonest to claim they make them "with the next edition in mind" so much as "there's some changes we needed to try out and/or place that nugget of the idea out there for people"

tneva82 wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
Second option - GW fire the current clowns and we try some new rules writers in 10th.

Too late by now. 10th rules too far ahead to change.

As the saying goes, "the second best time to start your diet is today".

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:


LoV are clearly an army writen in mind with the next edition,

What possible reason do you have to say that? Just to stir the po3y instead of admitting that GW's balance sucks?

There is few armies left to update in this edition. The last few codex always were writen with next edition in mind. The fact that GW writes their rules the way they do has nothing to do with it. When sm 2.0 came out, And 8th SoB, the rules set they had was clearly mirroring the early armies of 9th ed and not armies that came out in 8th.

I don't know what a po3y is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 806816 11433883 wrote:
I think it's dishonest to claim they make them "with the next edition in mind" so much as "there's some changes we needed to try out and/or place that nugget of the idea out there for people"

GW writes and works on their rules months in advance, by the time they were starting to work on the LoV, they probably not only had an idea what core 10th ed core rules will look like, but else early 10th codex.

Prior edition books, from what I have been told, even had rules in them which did nothing in the edition they came out in. Also designing LoV with 9th ed in mind would be just stupid, even if they get a SoB style early 10th second wave, they will still come out after marines and what ever is in the starter box with them, most people that gave good leaks said it is going to be tyranids. It is a new army, with no existing player base, it can not have bad rules or fizzle out when it comes out, because it would hurt GW. The rest is quartarly earning for the investors, end fiscal years looking in a way GW wants etc.

The is the "testing" when a book is out. when a book is out the next few are already done, often the next one is already printed.

Karol in corporate circles they treasure surprise and impact with new releases, they won't drop a codex 9-12 months before 10th ed with anything to suggest it's not a current edition book because they want the shock and surprise of the new edition announcement.

The main driving factor is if they announce that 10th is coming and all books from votann onward are 10th ed books, every other army is now a sunken cost for people and they won't be buying codex and models for armies they know the rules aren't going to be relevant for.

So it's best for them to drop subtle ideas and changes in behaviour shaped by the next edition rather than spelling it out as that would damage sales. If the army being overpowered is all it takes for a commercial success then I think the community needs a look in the mirror frankly.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
This would imply that your local TOs aren't that confident in the abilities of their local players - removing the entire faction so they don't get challenged would seem condescending, no?

Well given we just had a page of me being told altering the rules to create a fair environment is bad sportsmanship & condescending, I'd say it is.

A lie by omission is still a lie, you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I think it's dishonest to claim they make them "with the next edition in mind" so much as "there's some changes we needed to try out and/or place that nugget of the idea out there for people"

I've seen both sides of that; rules or design elements only become clear in the context of a subsequently released edition, and books released under that claim which had no more compatibility than average. I think it is worth wondering where that claim is coming from; is is a message the devs really want to send or is it something mandated by an advertising department? Regardless I agree with you in that it isn't good for GW to make a claim that turns out to be false in effect, even if they believed it at the time.

Dudeface wrote:
Karol in corporate circles they treasure surprise and impact with new releases, they won't drop a codex 9-12 months before 10th ed with anything to suggest it's not a current edition book because they want the shock and surprise of the new edition announcement.

The main driving factor is if they announce that 10th is coming and all books from votann onward are 10th ed books, every other army is now a sunken cost for people and they won't be buying codex and models for armies they know the rules aren't going to be relevant for.

So it's best for them to drop subtle ideas and changes in behaviour shaped by the next edition rather than spelling it out as that would damage sales. If the army being overpowered is all it takes for a commercial success then I think the community needs a look in the mirror frankly.

GW droped the first edition of AoS with 0 months preparation. They said something new next month, and then WFB is dead. That is how GW operates.
GW doesn't have to announce anything by the way. Take two or three last books from the few last editions and tell me they were not writen with the next edition in mind. 2.0 marines had the lay out of all 9th ed armies, not of 8th ed ones. And one can say many things about 2.0 marines, but not that their rule sets were subtle, they litteraly had 2 , at least, extra set of rules comparing to other books. It wasn't even the fact that they were more powerful, they just had more of them. And looking at LoV it looks like future books will have ways to circumvent inv saves, clear objectives and GW is really trying to make non dread and not skimer vehicles worth taking. As wasted money goes. Well with so few armies left to do, I say GL to the person who thinks that 9th will last for years, and for those that want to play the game it doesn't matter how much it is a waste. New rules come they will have to buy or pirate them, if they want to play, and adjust what is in their armies after update. Unless they get supper lucky, like GK players, and their army practicaly doesn't change.