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.

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Quite frankly I hope Votaan's win rate and sales crawl lower. GW screwed up this release badly.

40kstats.com has LoV at 44% win rate from a 149 game sample. Just outside the balance range that GW says is optimal. That 30% number is very suspect.

https://40kstats.goonhammer.com/#fp-votann

The book was designed to go toe-to-toe with books that have all been nerfed post release. On that basis alone, it's logical to assume it too will need to be nerfed to bring it in line with not just those books it was benchmarked against but also the older books. The rules leaking early and allowing folks to playtest the book in TTS further raised alarm about some of the problematic rules interactions.

The initial nerf might have been overdone in spots but it was hardly wild hysteria without supporting evidence that led people to the conclusion that a nerf of some sort was in order and the stats seem to indicate that they aren't far off where they should be in relation to wider field.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Quite frankly I hope Votaan's win rate and sales crawl lower. GW screwed up this release badly.

Well I don't thinking victimising a portion of the player base just to weaponise your GW hatred would be fair at this point.

Dudeface wrote:
Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Yes. A faction with a 10% win rate makes things miserable for a small subset of players: the people who play that specific faction and do not have any other army. A faction with a 90% win rate makes things miserable for everyone except that faction. One of these groups is much larger than the other and if I have to choose which one to sacrifice the choice is obvious.

Not that the choice is anything other than a false dilemma fallacy. Guard with a 99% win rate as a result of having 10 point Baneblades would probably not crash all the way to 10% win rate as a result of nerfing Baneblades out of competitive play.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Quite frankly I hope Votaan's win rate and sales crawl lower. GW screwed up this release badly.

Well I don't thinking victimising a portion of the player base just to weaponise your GW hatred would be fair at this point.

What playerbase? Nobody had any Votaan models and they weren't even asked for. GW can't even get the current armies they have correctly and not only do they do this and separate World Eaters from the core CSM codex, BUT also announced DarkMech as a new army.

They need to stop.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Quite frankly I hope Votaan's win rate and sales crawl lower. GW screwed up this release badly.

Well I don't thinking victimising a portion of the player base just to weaponise your GW hatred would be fair at this point.

What playerbase? Nobody had any Votaan models and they weren't even asked for. GW can't even get the current armies they have correctly and not only do they do this and separate World Eaters from the core CSM codex, BUT also announced DarkMech as a new army.

They need to stop.

There was plenty of demand for the return of squats and they've shown what looks to be a dark mech character as a part of a campaign, which isn't the same thing as revealing a new army by any stretch. The point still stands you're willing to throw other peoples enjoyment under the bus in the name of some venomous punishment of a company.

That would track if they had released Squats, they chose to release Votann instead. They'll get no $ from me.

Oh wait they alresdy did...for Necromunda & AOS.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

What playerbase? Nobody had any Votaan models and they weren't even asked for.

Technically correct. We squat players have been demanding (not asking) the return of our army since 2e.

Ok, the Votaan aren't exactly what most of us had envisioned. But at least our space dwarves are back.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

What playerbase? Nobody had any Votaan models and they weren't even asked for.

Technically correct. We squat players have been demanding (not asking) the return of our army since 2e.

Ok, the Votaan aren't exactly what most of us had envisioned. But at least our space dwarves are back.

It's completely different aesthetics and units. Nice try on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Quite frankly I hope Votaan's win rate and sales crawl lower. GW screwed up this release badly.

Well I don't thinking victimising a portion of the player base just to weaponise your GW hatred would be fair at this point.

What playerbase? Nobody had any Votaan models and they weren't even asked for. GW can't even get the current armies they have correctly and not only do they do this and separate World Eaters from the core CSM codex, BUT also announced DarkMech as a new army.

They need to stop.

There was plenty of demand for the return of squats and they've shown what looks to be a dark mech character as a part of a campaign, which isn't the same thing as revealing a new army by any stretch. The point still stands you're willing to throw other peoples enjoyment under the bus in the name of some venomous punishment of a company.

You mean the Squats that got used as Imperial Guard or Marine stand ins anyway? Yeah okay. Votaan are NOT Squats by a long shot in aesthetics or units. Votaan are an army that nobody asked for, and one that doesn't have a player base to begin with because they're a NEW ARMY

Tyel wrote:
But the issue is that tuning a book down is a harder process. For example, do you change the datasheets, do you change the army rules or do you up the points so they play with less stuff? Almost every 2022 codex seems to have experienced a combo of all three. And how many games are you then going to play with each new version of these rules? Very quickly you can be into playing hundreds of games - and that faction has to get sent out the door so you can repeat the process with the next one.

99% of the time you just change points, rules should only be changed to make them more thematic. The AdMech Stratagem Enriched Rounds is stupidly overtuned, but it's really not the end of the world if you just change points appropriately, like the core unit of 5 costing 5X and each additional model costing X+Y to discourage big units that make Enriched Rounds too strong. What about Necron Command Protocols that were so bad that some people just ignored them? Let them ignore it, if Necrons are underpowered lower their pts costs.

The designers need to do some basic math on the efficiency of their mechanics and then it needs to be tested by a casual group to see if it is fun, then it's between the competitive testers and the designers to find out how to balance pts and CP costs for the mechanics that are fun. Were the original judgement tokens unfun or were the units just undercosted and the designers needed a scapegoat? Why not reduce T or S instead? Better yet, rely on pts to actually balance things since that is the final determinant of whether units are too good or not good enough anyway.

Problem with enriched rounds and points is you can't exactly point cost unit for stratagem...Because then unit is underpowered if you DON'T use stratagem. Which means having more than 1 unit makes no sense.

I think Stratagems changing every 3 months is worse than the possibility of Vanguard spam being unviable. Because it is only a possibility, when AdMech were released spamming Vanguard was popular despite a lot of their power being baked into the Stratagem, because having a back-up unit to use the Stratagem in case the first one was damage was worthwhile. The same thing was true for Necron Lokhust Destroyers in 8th.

 vict0988 wrote:
I think Stratagems changing every 3 months is worse than the possibility of Vanguard spam being unviable. Because it is only a possibility, when AdMech were released spamming Vanguard was popular despite a lot of their power being baked into the Stratagem, because having a back-up unit to use the Stratagem in case the first one was damage was worthwhile. The same thing was true for Necron Lokhust Destroyers in 8th.

The possibility of stratagems changing is far better than the certainty of balance issues caused by an overpowered stratagem. And why is having to deal with stratagems changing worse than having to deal with point costs changing?

Similarly with your command protocols example. Having a key mechanic that is ignored because it doesn't work well is very poor design. It seems like the problem is that, like many tournament players, you're excessively caught up in questions of codex vs. codex balance and willing to ignore any issues of internal balance or fun as long as the win rate for the codex as a whole is within the target 45-55%.

 vict0988 wrote:
Were the original judgement tokens unfun or were the units just undercosted and the designers needed a scapegoat? Why not reduce T or S instead? Better yet, rely on pts to actually balance things since that is the final determinant of whether units are too good or not good enough anyway.

You don't change points or S/T because the interaction between pre-nerf judgement tokens and rail weapons is fundamentally broken and not fun. It's almost impossible to have a balanced and fun version of a unit that effectively has a weapon that automatically hits, automatically wounds, ignores all saves, and gets to apply overkill damage to other models in the unit with flat 12 damage. Don't even roll dice, just pick a target and tell your opponent to remove it from the table. Nerfing the railgun problem directly was a far better plan than trying to find a point cost where auto-killing stuff isn't either an auto-take or a never-take.

Points fix themselves in Battlescribe and is only something the list builder needs to care about, everybody needs to care about and remember rules.

I don't see how I am overly caught up in external balance. Command Protocols being strong has hurt internal balance, not helped it. Especially outside Nephilim where multi-Dynasty lists have become a non-option because Command Protocols have become necessary to build a strong list, just like Combat Doctrines for SM.

It's entirely possible JT were unfun, but why were they printed like that? Do you see how you say the Necrons mechanic was too weak and Necrons were bad and the JT mechanic was broken and LoV were strong, I'm questioning whether you and GW are caring more about win rate than good game design. I think Command Protocols were pretty fun and I got some use out of them, IMO they needed simplification, not a power boost.

Not a Necron player really so I can't claim much experience, but as I understood it the problem with Command Protocols is that you needed baby-sitting characters everywhere. And most Necron Characters were (and probably still are) overcosted, so bringing more of them leads to an obviously inefficient list.

I don't know where "fun" comes into this. Having half a dozen characters on the table seems fun to me - but if it just results in losing most of the time, then not so much.

Losing when you can't do anything about it is always not fun. And a fix to the situation would either be impossible, as there are armies that will always kill what ever they focus on, or the necron characters would have to be made extremly resilient, to a point of them being killed of being impossible, but then this would create a very negative expiriance for non necron players. As the supposed necron handicap, tough army which loses if it has no characters, would only be a thing on paper. I would be like eldar being powerful on attack, but less resilient on taking damge in the lore. But in reality with alfa strikes and over laping -1 to hit, invs and super speed, they are only glass canon in the lore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus 807483 11450160 wrote:
You don't change points or S/T because the interaction between pre-nerf judgement tokens and rail weapons is fundamentally broken and not fun. It's almost impossible to have a balanced and fun version of a unit that effectively has a weapon that automatically hits, automatically wounds, ignores all saves, and gets to apply overkill damage to other models in the unit with flat 12 damage. Don't even roll dice, just pick a target and tell your opponent to remove it from the table. Nerfing the railgun problem directly was a far better plan than trying to find a point cost where auto-killing stuff isn't either an auto-take or a never-take.

How is it less fun, then armies like SoB or necron playing soliter though. Sure LoV were awesome vs small and elite armies, especialy those that had their resiliance based on invs. They were the perfect marine and custodes killers, pre nerf. But other armies could counter play them. You can't counter play an army which core mechanics say that, if you don't table them till turn 2, then by turn 3 or 4 they will have maxed secondaries and by the end of the game probably primaries too. And LoV had bad sides, they were slow, very bad on high terrain tables, with weak to bad secondaries

Comparing stuff like MW mechanics on weapons, being able to just play without care in all match ups is mind blowing, why GW thought the the big necron game changer is going to be removing core from the Cmd barrge and the Silent King.

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Literally yes.... from a game design standpoint it is better to have a 10% win faction than a 90% win rate faction. A 90% win rate faction is literally negatively impacting every other faction in the game. We have something like 25 codexes so a 90% win rate in negatively impacting 24/25 factions. A 10% win rate is negatively impacting just 1 faction so 1/25.

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Literally yes.... from a game design standpoint it is better to have a 10% win faction than a 90% win rate faction. A 90% win rate faction is literally negatively impacting every other faction in the game. We have something like 25 codexes so a 90% win rate in negatively impacting 24/25 factions. A 10% win rate is negatively impacting just 1 faction so 1/25.

That's incorrect. If you won an event by only playing against 10% wr armies, how is everyone else going to feel?

Edit: to clarify the point is some people would manipulate things to get runs against the "easy" army. People would feel annoyed that in their 5th round their opponent only got there by playing the 10% guys on easy wins after they slugged through nids/sisters/crons etc.

People would end up having to ban the 10% army from events due to creating skewed results. The exact same as if there is a 90% army.

https://www.stat-check.com/the-meta
Votann currently sit at 52% wr (77 matches) in GT+ events (minimum of 25 players and 5 rounds).

And no list had anything but warriors, bikes, champions and kahls.

Considering the chances of only playing against an hypothetical 10% wr army in 5 round tournament is around 1 in 9.7 million, it is an irrelevant hypothetical.

 Tyran wrote:
Considering the chances of only playing against an hypothetical 10% wr army in 5 round tournament is around 1 in 9.7 million, it is an irrelevant hypothetical.

Care to share the maths there?

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Considering the chances of only playing against an hypothetical 10% wr army in 5 round tournament is around 1 in 9.7 million, it is an irrelevant hypothetical.

Care to share the maths there?

25 to the power of 5.

 Tyran wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Considering the chances of only playing against an hypothetical 10% wr army in 5 round tournament is around 1 in 9.7 million, it is an irrelevant hypothetical.

Care to share the maths there?

25 to the power of 5.

So in an utterly perfect spread of factions with an exact 25 players, yes you are correct. Does it change that a 10% win rate faction would overall skew the win rates of other factions? No.

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Literally yes.... from a game design standpoint it is better to have a 10% win faction than a 90% win rate faction. A 90% win rate faction is literally negatively impacting every other faction in the game. We have something like 25 codexes so a 90% win rate in negatively impacting 24/25 factions. A 10% win rate is negatively impacting just 1 faction so 1/25.

That's incorrect. If you won an event by only playing against 10% wr armies, how is everyone else going to feel?

Edit: to clarify the point is some people would manipulate things to get runs against the "easy" army. People would feel annoyed that in their 5th round their opponent only got there by playing the 10% guys on easy wins after they slugged through nids/sisters/crons etc.

People would end up having to ban the 10% army from events due to creating skewed results. The exact same as if there is a 90% army.

How would you “win an event” by playing against 10% win rate armies? At most you would face that army round 1. You also once again fail to actually address the point of my post. It’s basic math which would be healthier for a game. A 90% win rate literally oppresses every other army a 10% win rate does nothing to affect other armies. Is there are 25 armies I’d take upsetting 1/24 over 24/25 all day every day.

But even your example is ridiculous because at worst LVO is sitting at a 30% and as others have pointed out it’s closer to 44% depending on metrics. Chances are a couple months after they have their full range they will be sitting comfortably between 45-55 as intended

Dudeface wrote:

So in an utterly perfect spread of factions with an exact 25 players, yes you are correct.

True it isn't a perfect math, but in the real world a 10% wr faction is going to have an abysmal playrate at the event level, meaning the actual probability of winning an event by playing the 10% wr faction is actually going to be even lower than 1 in 9.7 million.

Does it change that a 10% win rate faction would overall skew the win rates of other factions? No.

Sure it would skew them, but at a far lesser degree than a 90% wr faction would, because people jump out of underperfoming armies onto overperforming ones.

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Literally yes.... from a game design standpoint it is better to have a 10% win faction than a 90% win rate faction. A 90% win rate faction is literally negatively impacting every other faction in the game. We have something like 25 codexes so a 90% win rate in negatively impacting 24/25 factions. A 10% win rate is negatively impacting just 1 faction so 1/25.

That's incorrect. If you won an event by only playing against 10% wr armies, how is everyone else going to feel?

Edit: to clarify the point is some people would manipulate things to get runs against the "easy" army. People would feel annoyed that in their 5th round their opponent only got there by playing the 10% guys on easy wins after they slugged through nids/sisters/crons etc.

People would end up having to ban the 10% army from events due to creating skewed results. The exact same as if there is a 90% army.

How would you “win an event” by playing against 10% win rate armies? At most you would face that army round 1. You also once again fail to actually address the point of my post. It’s basic math which would be healthier for a game. A 90% win rate literally oppresses every other army a 10% win rate does nothing to affect other armies. Is there are 25 armies I’d take upsetting 1/24 over 24/25 all day every day.

But even your example is ridiculous because at worst LVO is sitting at a 30% and as others have pointed out it’s closer to 44% depending on metrics. Chances are a couple months after they have their full range they will be sitting comfortably between 45-55 as intended

Your basic maths is flawed. This is a multiplayer game, there would be at least 1 person every game having a bad time if one army was arbitrarily sat at a 10% win rate. If you then inject them into an event, there's lots of people in that event basically getting free wins and being moved either into higher brackets than they should be and we've had the submarine controversy already. I aren't ignoring your point, you're failing to think outside of your own perspective and treating it like a single player game of statistics.

Imagine telling someone "hey it's much better you lose 9/10 games than the opposite!" or "It's better than I beat you 9/10 times with whatever I found down the back of my sofa than you won loads"

I'll draw a line under it there for me, 10% win rate armies are about as likely as 10pt baneblades and cultists with assault cannons at 5pts. They're not going to happen, I stand by my point that it's not good enough to make someone have a bad time in the name of any greater good for a hobby like this. I agree they will likely land in the 45-55% bracket for what it's worth, but the general community did themselves a disservice on this whole situation.

It would be an unpleasant task, and individually demoralising. But the backdrop is that out of 25 possible factions, each with different levels of popularity, it is better to have to tell one of the factions this, rather than having to tell 24 factions this.

Not sure its adding much, but I agree an army with a 10% win rate is bad for players of that faction. An army with a 90% win rate is bad for everyone else.

In practice it would be impossible to have multiple factions with a 90% win rate unless, inexplicably, there were huge numbers of people signing up with the 10% win rate faction.

We know that when Tau & Custodes ruled the roost, they were posting 70% or so win rates versus the rest of the game. In some events 80%. But the inevitable rise of mirrors, and games into each other, kept the stats lower.

 Flinty wrote:
It would be an unpleasant task, and individually demoralising. But the backdrop is that out of 25 possible factions, each with different levels of popularity, it is better to have to tell one of the factions this, rather than having to tell 24 factions this.

Sorry, to drop that same metrics back out, in that hypothetical perfect spread 25 person 5 round event, you're telling 24 people there's a 4% chance they'll have a game that's almost a dead certain loss.

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sure but what points should they be, do any of the weapon profiles need adjusting, are they in the right slot, are there any unexpected interactions with the mission formats?

Make them 1000 points each if you have to. Baneblades that are priced out of competitive play are better than 10 point Baneblades that give guard a 99% non-mirror win rate and make tournaments unplayable unless you have a Baneblade squadron. This isn't the kind of thing where you wait and see to get it perfect. You don't have time for that, you either act immediately and decisively or you cancel every tournament until you do.

Excellent, better have a faction with 10% win rate than 90% right?

Literally yes.... from a game design standpoint it is better to have a 10% win faction than a 90% win rate faction. A 90% win rate faction is literally negatively impacting every other faction in the game. We have something like 25 codexes so a 90% win rate in negatively impacting 24/25 factions. A 10% win rate is negatively impacting just 1 faction so 1/25.

That's incorrect. If you won an event by only playing against 10% wr armies, how is everyone else going to feel?

Edit: to clarify the point is some people would manipulate things to get runs against the "easy" army. People would feel annoyed that in their 5th round their opponent only got there by playing the 10% guys on easy wins after they slugged through nids/sisters/crons etc.

People would end up having to ban the 10% army from events due to creating skewed results. The exact same as if there is a 90% army.

How would you “win an event” by playing against 10% win rate armies? At most you would face that army round 1. You also once again fail to actually address the point of my post. It’s basic math which would be healthier for a game. A 90% win rate literally oppresses every other army a 10% win rate does nothing to affect other armies. Is there are 25 armies I’d take upsetting 1/24 over 24/25 all day every day.

But even your example is ridiculous because at worst LVO is sitting at a 30% and as others have pointed out it’s closer to 44% depending on metrics. Chances are a couple months after they have their full range they will be sitting comfortably between 45-55 as intended

Your basic maths is flawed. This is a multiplayer game, there would be at least 1 person every game having a bad time if one army was arbitrarily sat at a 10% win rate. If you then inject them into an event, there's lots of people in that event basically getting free wins and being moved either into higher brackets than they should be and we've had the submarine controversy already. I aren't ignoring your point, you're failing to think outside of your own perspective and treating it like a single player game of statistics.

Imagine telling someone "hey it's much better you lose 9/10 games than the opposite!" or "It's better than I beat you 9/10 times with whatever I found down the back of my sofa than you won loads"

I'll draw a line under it there for me, 10% win rate armies are about as likely as 10pt baneblades and cultists with assault cannons at 5pts. They're not going to happen, I stand by my point that it's not good enough to make someone have a bad time in the name of any greater good for a hobby like this. I agree they will likely land in the 45-55% bracket for what it's worth, but the general community did themselves a disservice on this whole situation.

uhhhhh the only "basic math" that is flawed is your own. If there are 25 factions (just assuming all have the same popularity to keep it simple). That means that there are 24 players for every 1 votan player. If LOV is crushing everyone else that means there are 24 factions aka 24/1 people being negatively affected by this. If LOV sucked then while its still undesirable you at least only have 1 faction being negatively affected so 1 compared to 24 others.

So you then go on to admit that they will probably land between a 45-55% win rate so what exactly is the issue? It honestly sounds like you are mad you didnt get a few weeks of auto wins.