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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

I did not say that lol. It was quoted from someone else....

Good point - I've edited my response above.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I see 3 good arguments why you should not ban for events (local games is different)

1) Get clear data as to what is a problem and what is not, and if it even is a problem. This is so we know what to change.
2) The meta could easily shift to counter, we dont know if we dont try, and we could also find a glaring weakness, or the opposite, without data we can't know.
3) Like in the past the community has been wrong (Look at Custodes, almost everyone thought they took an L with their new book and ended up being really strong).

Just the itsy bitsy problem that NR 1- requires GW to actually pay attention.
to their community and Community testers, they didn't really show any attention which would have reduced most likely quite a bit egregious exemples. (contrary they seem to have laid off most of them without much fuss )
Why should they then consider Tournamentsresults until the backlash reaches critical and even then, considering certain factions and units over the duration of 8th and 9th (cultists) seems perfectly willing to correct according to their capricious imagination of a faction rather than hard data.

Slipspace wrote:
This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Yes. Its perhaps less common in the modern tourney scene - because it tends to be red in tooth and claw.
But plenty of people have gone "I'm not playing this" - whether because its overpowered, or even just because *everyone* is playing it, and therefore its become boring.

Plenty of people for instance stopped playing Marine players during their 2019-2020 era of dominance. Not necessarily due to the power level - but because playing Marines & Marines and more Marines got incredibly boring. If 40% or something of a store is bringing Marines, and "they want to avoid mirrors because its boring", that's all you got.

Its always been my view on highly skewed armies. If I ran out and got 9 Voidweavers, I'd have gotten to play the people in my group maybe once... and then they'd have gone "nah, no, bring something else or I'm not interested."

I see these things happen and just feel bad for Mike B and his team, the organised play team clearly aren't getting the leverage or access to the processes they need before print and are left dealing with... this.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

GK essentially were 5th edition's Leagues of Votann. New army, better at everything than everyone else and outright hard-countered a bunch of armies, not counting the auto-win against daemons.

The guy hated them so much he had them banned. Despite editions and the army changing a lot, he never lifted that ban and still tells people with GK armies that they can't play them at his place.

Slipspace wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:A bit of general speculation: could all this bad balance just be that the rules teams are stretched too thin and don't have enough time to do things right?

I don't think so. I think it's a company culture issue. They either don't value balance or the designers are incapable of delivering it. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

As I've explained elsewhere in the past, its very likely a time-factor issue. The pace of the release schedule does not allow for these books to be thoroughly playtested and evaluated against every other book. Its quite likely that they are only being evaluated against the most recent books to have been released - likely only those that are part of the same development "tranche". That would explain why codex releases tend to follow a sort of pattern to their relative power levels, with batches of books that scale well amongst themselves, but not with other batches of books released prior or subsequent to that one.

Its also bares mentioning that lead times on production schedules means that a codex being released now could not have captured or accounted for any post-release balance updated, etc. made in the prior ~3-6 month timeframe. In fact, its quite likely that codecies being released now (Votann) were evaluated relative to the meta in the march/april timeframe when Harlequins and Tyranids were making an absolute mockery of any pretention of game balance within 40k. In fact, if you look at Votann in relation to nids and harlies as they were on release prior to updates, etc. they do match up pretty well.

Dudeface wrote:I see these things happen and just feel bad for Mike B and his team, the organised play team clearly aren't getting the leverage or access to the processes they need before print and are left dealing with... this.

As I understand it, Mike B is an events organiser. He doesn't have any official playtesting or game balance role at all, so there's no reason he would or should get access to this kind of thing, at least on an individual Codex level. It is, of course, a problem if people think otherwise and he gets blamed for these things, which is likely to happen if he's the face of the organised events.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:A bit of general speculation: could all this bad balance just be that the rules teams are stretched too thin and don't have enough time to do things right?

I don't think so. I think it's a company culture issue. They either don't value balance or the designers are incapable of delivering it. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

As I've explained elsewhere in the past, its very likely a time-factor issue. The pace of the release schedule does not allow for these books to be thoroughly playtested and evaluated against every other book.

The problem with that theory is balance was at least as bad even when they had much longer release schedules. I'm sure the current pace of release doesn't help but I'd hesitate to say it's the main reason.

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

You are confusing pick-up games with tournament games. I'm never "compelled" to play a pick-up game, heck i turned one down this weekend because I was enjoying another game I was watching and wanted to see the conclusion play out. So yes in pick-up games I might turn it down because i really don't want to play against a meta list or a specific build or because I'm just being lazy. Competitive tournaments are completely different though, the entire point is to play whatever your matched up against and win. There would be zero point to these tournaments if they begin to arbitrarily ban "strong stuff". Let's use the largest tournament as an example Say the LVO bans the LOV so instead Tyranids win.... well clearly Tyranids were stronger than the competition so they should have been banned..... but if we ban them then sisters win, which clearly makes them better than other armies so they should have been banned..... then elder would win.... repeat till the bottom.

Banning factions in competitive tournaments creates a race to the bottom and defeat the entire purpose. This is also why this entire subject is theoretical and we wont be seeing any to the truly big tournament organizers banning any faction (with the exceptions of armies including models that arent released yet, for obvious reasons)

Asmodios wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

You are confusing pick-up games with tournament games.

The point I was replying to was taking about 40k more generally, not just tournament 40k. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Slipspace wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:

And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine.

This is already the case. Nobody is compelled to play anyone. I've seen players refuse games against broken Codices numerous times, usually because the game simply isn't fun so people would rather not bother.

Your entire argument boils down to "we haven't done it before so can't start now". That's beyond stupid. If banning an overpowered faction is deemed, overall, to be good for the game, or their own events, it makes sense for TOs to ban them. What doesn't make sense is refusing to do something that might be an overall benefit because we didn't do it in the past.

You are confusing pick-up games with tournament games.

The point I was replying to was taking about 40k more generally, not just tournament 40k. At least, that's how I interpreted it.

The entire thread is talking about tournaments .... because an individual can refuse to play anything for any reason without an effect on the community. The entire term "ban" means some sort of group or event isnt allowing a book

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Case and point one of the biggest questions that the community has been asking in 30k for example is if a rule applies to legion specific bolters.

For reference there is a rule in 30k called fury of the legion that gives bolt weapons and extra shot If they remain still, the problem is the rule says "applies to bolters" but no one is sure if that counts to legion specific bolters, like tsons with their asphyx bolter.

It's "case in point".

Are legion specific bolters still bolters? Obviously they are, so why wouldn't it apply? Shrapnel bolters and asphyx bolters are still bolters. It's literally right there in the name...

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Don't really see how banning a book is cowardice. And saying "you'll ban this one, but you didn't ban X" - just leads us, book by broken book, back to 2nd edition. "You didn't do it then, so you never should" isn't great logic.

In practice though, we know how this is played. Some tournaments round the world will allow you to play with everything in the codex, proxying the models which are not currently available. If its as bonkers as many think (and mathhammer brokenness usually works out) - it will win loads of tournaments. The "professional 40k media circuit" will then kick off (its already started imo) - and in about 3-4 weeks GW will intervene because they hate the bad press of having a "broken game". (Even if, in reality, sub 1% of the playerbase have ever seen 9 Voidweavers on the table.)

They may try, per conspiratorial reasons, to hold the line until at least the first wave of pre-orders for Hekatons etc are out the door. Especially if that's only a few weeks away.

Ultimately the Judgement Token system just needs to be completely reworked. Ideas like "you lose 1 token a turn" may help - but in the face of things like "if you have one, count as 2", giving you auto-wound on 5s, is still busted as hell. Like Tyranids & Harlequins, its going to have to be completely chopped up from the initial in-codex version to make vaguely sensible.

I see 3 good arguments why you should not ban for events (local games is different)

1) Get clear data as to what is a problem and what is not, and if it even is a problem. This is so we know what to change.
2) The meta could easily shift to counter, we dont know if we dont try, and we could also find a glaring weakness, or the opposite, without data we can't know.
3) Like in the past the community has been wrong (Look at Custodes, almost everyone thought they took an L with their new book and ended up being really strong).

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Slipspace wrote:

The problem with that theory is balance was at least as bad even when they had much longer release schedules. I'm sure the current pace of release doesn't help but I'd hesitate to say it's the main reason.

I dunno, I feel like balance has become worse post-8th - I obviously have no data to support this and don't really care to research it, but I will say that while there were always severe balance issues, it tended towards being 1-2 books over the lifecycle of a given edition, whereas in the post 8th world, its like 1-2 books with egregious levels of power *per year*.

I don't think release speed is an issue.

To quote the Goonhammer Hammer of Math article: "Four of the fundamental expectations of Warhammer 40k are that (1) tough things are hard to wound, (2) invulnerable saves are a reliable floor, (3) excess damage is lost, and (4) that probability drives the results of the game.

Leagues of Votann break them all."

It doesn't take "time" to realise breaking these fundamentals is likely to be problematic.

The problem of recent 40k is that you've got this massive stat creep at just about all levels (unit stats, weapon stats, chapter tactics, stratagems, wlt/relics etc etc). But GW have also been forced to create a "Purity bonus" for just about every faction. And in trying to increase the design space, this often "breaks" core 40k, and hence proves problematic to balance.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Because obvious hyperbole.

But you're welcome to try again to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. Hopefully with a little more thought and rationale instead of just repeating yourself. Maybe word it in a way my duum consoomer brain can comprehend it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tneva is right. The only language gw is willing to understand is sales numbers.
Considering what little influence the community testers had and how gw just cut them out,there is no point in gw to consider data from tournaments, in essence any concern of the community of depriving gw of "valuable data" by banning lov from tourneys is pretty irrelevant.

Unless by the fluke chance some of the gw designers get their backsides handed to them in the freak incident. But that requires these designers to leave their ivory tower, which they rarely do. But even then that is debatable and may be coinciding with a balance related loss of sales.

I think he's right if only for the reason that the best way we can get GW to change their release method is by refusal to buy and bans.

Banning might seem counter productive, but we can't keep playing extreme whack-a-mole if we want the long term health of the game to be good.

GW's desire to push a gakky book out isn't from pushing models, but more like Cyberpunk 2077 where they should have spent more time on it, but put it out there, because they need to actually just sell the game to keep money coming in.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Whatever happened to German players liking a challenge?

If the intent was "We're not allowing Leagues until the full release", that's one thing, but if they're doing this when they weren't doing it for other OP books during the edition, I have to wonder at the sudden onset of cowardice.

It's the continued lack of quality control, I think.

Dataslates as an idea are awesome, but they're really cumbersome at the moment.

Sometimes they do fine like with Knights, CSM, and Daemons ( obviously issues still occur ) and then torpedo the whole thing with books like DE and Votann. And we've just come to a point where despite the majority of books being fine the upheaval of a bad book affects everyone else as well.

Karol wrote:

Do you have any idea what precedance you are creating, if it would happen. this would mean that people could buy an army and then find out that the 1000$ they spend, is unplayable. And not because some army is very bad, no because the opponent can just say no for any reason they can imagine

Ummm....you realize right that's the core principle in the game don't you?

Getting to play vs anybody you wish isn't human right nobody can deny you. If i don't want to play vs you for whatever reason i don't have to play. As is if you appear at my door step demanding me to play i'll just laugh and say no. There's literally no way whatsoever for you to force me to play vs you. What ya gonna do? Threaten to nuke me?

You...don't...get...to...decide...who..people...play...with.

 oni wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Because obvious hyperbole.

But you're welcome to try again to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. Hopefully with a little more thought and rationale instead of just repeating yourself. Maybe word it in a way my duum consoomer brain can comprehend it.

I already did for your consoomer attitude. If GW released Cultists with Assault Cannons standard, but kept them the same price, is that fine because you think they look good and you have a need to consoom?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean Christ, dude, look at your original post:

 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.

You're the epitome of Kirby saying that the hobby is buying GW models and paint. CONSOOM

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 oni wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I don't need to see tournament results to know that if you gave Cultists or Infantry an Assault Cannon standard, but kept them the same price, they'd be broken.

Hyperbole but it proves a point that Oni still has yet to reply to by me because he's the ultimate consoomer.

Because obvious hyperbole.

But you're welcome to try again to make whatever point it is you're trying to make. Hopefully with a little more thought and rationale instead of just repeating yourself. Maybe word it in a way my duum consoomer brain can comprehend it.

I already did for your consoomer attitude. If GW released Cultists with Assault Cannons standard, but kept them the same price, is that fine because you think they look good and you have a need to consoom?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean Christ, dude, look at your original post:

 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.

You're the epitome of Kirby saying that the hobby is buying GW models and paint. CONSOOM

Hmmm... Yeah, I'm still not gettin' it, but you get a gold star for trying. Keep at it champ.

You don't get you're telling people to ignore the rules and CONSOOM ALL MODELS TO BUILD ARMIES? That's pretty aerodynamic of you

I think the problem is that I am reasonably hype for the new models. I think they are mostly cool. (Some I remain kind of neutral to hostile on - but there's enough here).

But I'm also hot for the CSM. Who didn't break the game. But I'm fond of Tau. Who did. But... I'm also fond of GSC, who didn't. But my main army is DE - who did. Etc. My very limited Ork collection is essentially unplayable because of how that book clearly wants you to build armies.

Banning is imo a reasonable take on GW failing to balance the game. I don't think its strictly necessary these days - because online backlash=GW nerfs in about the time it takes to order, build and paint a kit.

But I remember how things used to be. Where GW would throw out rules, and that was just it for 4-6 years. If stuff was busted, it remained so. If stuff was incredibly weak, it remained so. And this is why most 8th edition Fantasy tournaments had a whole host of rules to try and "balance" a game GW had completely abandoned (and was shortly going to kill off). People would say of 7th "oh its fine if you don't have daemons, Vampire counts & dark elves, who... seem to make up 60-70% of tournament lists." 40k didn't quite get as proscriptive - due I think to the whims of those behind ITC/ETC - but tbh, at the height of 7ths excesses, it almost certainly would have been better if it had.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah this, the army you can say isn't officially released, so makes sense to say you can't play it at an event. Not bc its OP, if that was the case then Nids and Admech would have been banned.

a_typical_hero wrote:
LoV seem to be banned in parts of German tournaments:

Spoiler:

Show me on the statement what was quoted where they're saying it was due to the release method, as opposed to the alleged power of the book. I'll wait.

To give in and do it for this book, and not, say, DE/AdMech/the-Harlequins-part-of-Eldar/Custodes/Tyranids - just off the top of my head - is rank cowardice. If the power is going to be the measure of when you ban something, have the intestinal fortitude to ban books for existing armies before you do it to new ones.

Or, y'know, encourage your players to "git gud".

You can't "git gud" to beat Votann. They're that broken.

Votann is also seemingly worse than Nids or Harlequins. So it makes sense to ban them first. If the community receives this ban well, think about banning something else.

You calling it cowardice just makes it seem like you're salty you won't get some unearned wins with the new book. I know people who are 3d printing Hekatons to have them to beat ob people asap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

because a local community can do whatever they want
same as some ban Forgeworld/HH units or Names Characters

Sure they can, doesn't make it right, but I was genuinely asking why and not a answer like "Bc I said so". Thanks for adding nothing to the convo.

because this is the reason, a local community (1 store/club/event), banned them because they don't like them, nothing else

no wide "no GK allowed" in a whole region or event series, just the local community, because they can do it

I know also 3 local stores with bans on different armies/units which is only important if you play in that store and no reason needed

I sincerely doubt that. I think you're making crap up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I know at least one place here in Germany which still bans GK from play

Wait GKs are banned? wtf why?

GK essentially were 5th edition's Leagues of Votann. New army, better at everything than everyone else and outright hard-countered a bunch of armies, not counting the auto-win against daemons.

The guy hated them so much he had them banned. Despite editions and the army changing a lot, he never lifted that ban and still tells people with GK armies that they can't play them at his place.

Ward, ironically, is probably responsible for both codexes, but I still don't believe you.

I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

 Jidmah wrote:

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Dude sounds like he knows whats up

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Dude sounds like he knows whats up

The truely woke know they should have stayed part of codex Daemonhunters and never gone an inch farther.

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Ah so he's the classic neckbeard that never moved on from 4th, both in 40k and emotional maturity.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Ah so he's the classic neckbeard that never moved on from 4th, both in 40k and emotional maturity.

I'd check if that computer monitor is made of glass there bro...

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Yeah I always hear about these nightmare game stores and then it ends up being smoke and mirrors.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't give damn whether you do

Feel free to tell me if you're ever near Colgne/Düsseldorf, then I'll drag you to that guy's club so he can give you his four hours rant on how GK should never have been their own army and that they should have stayed IG allies. Be careful not mention primaris though, otherwise you might be there all night

Yeah I always hear about these nightmare game stores and then it ends up being smoke and mirrors.

Its even more odd bc if I had a game with a friend with GKs, how is he going to stop us? He is really going to tell us to leave? Running a game store you can't afford to do that.....

Hecaton wrote:
You can't "git gud" to beat Votann. They're that broken.

Votann is also seemingly worse than Nids or Harlequins. So it makes sense to ban them first. If the community receives this ban well, think about banning something else.

You calling it cowardice just makes it seem like you're salty you won't get some unearned wins with the new book. I know people who are 3d printing Hekatons to have them to beat ob people asap.

As is often the case, Hecaton, you're operating on an understanding that's at a tangent to reality - I'm not currently planning on starting a Votann army, and probably not even picking anything up from the initial release, with the possibly exception of the psyker. As a result, I can hardly be "salty" about not getting unearned wins, now, can I?

The cowardice here is two-fold:
A, For a community that is meant to be about figuring out how to overcome opponents, banning a book with the quoted reason being the power of it is a scene running away from a challenge. We've all seen books touted as OP or UP, even claims of mathematical models proving those claims, only for them to turn out different on the tabletop. If you're too scared to play against them, you're never going to figure things out.
B, In a similar vein, there've been a whole host of blatantly OP books in 9th. They haven't been banned for their power, presumably because those factions had an existing playerbase that the TOs didn't want to exclude from their events, because that would lead to reduced revenue. Again, not being willing to stand up and ban those books for fear of backlash? That's cowardice.

As I stated earlier in this thread (or possibly in the other one, I lose track), I have no problem with Votann being banned until the book (and the rest of the line) gets a proper release. If there's a standard "you can't use this" window for all books (and FAQs/errata) to allow people to get used to them? Again, no issues there because that is equitable.

But, and I'll draw your attention back to that initial announcement, that wasn't how this was presented. The only reason quoted in that first post here was about the power of the army. And to ban tis army for power when you didn't ban Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Ad Mech, etc? Yeah, that's cowardice.