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.

This is going to be a very bad take for me, but one I am feeling none the less. It FEELS like some of the Squat supporters ( or those who did not want them nerfed ) are just salty because they were /are not the curbstompers they were before the nerfs.

I know its probably a small number of squat fans, but I sense it nonetheless.

Tyel wrote:
I think the argument is more "have more testers".

Whether its worthwhile for GW to have 10-20 people who just play 2 games of 40k every working day is an open question - but really, its probably not *that* expensive. That would give you say 200-400 games a month. Which would probably give you decent indications.

Admittedly whether these people would go mad playing this much and trying to keep the countless different rules versions in their heads is an open question.

I guess for "cheap" you could have say 5-10 archetype armies that you play into and then see how it feels. If its a bit much, it should be obvious. I feel though there are quite a few different sort of lists out there, and so going "right, one game into Marines, tick" isn't really going to give you much.

You are way overestimating the difficulty. If you have 10-15 lists you want tested that's 30-45 games per faction, you don't need to revise points for every faction every month. Hiring 20 people would absolutely be expensive and wouldn't do a damn thing if they were just playing for fun, what GW needs is structure to their playtesting. Volunteers can absolutely do it, maybe GW shouldn't send the darn finished codex to them and should instead include them WAY earlier in the process so they have influence and cannot leak the thing.

Honestly, 5 games against the top codexes should be enough to get a solid feel for where a codex is mechanically if the game itself is functioning well.

I feel that the judgment tokens are more a management liking it than the writers and rule staff.
As seen players could see it’s issues instantly, so competent design should pick it up as well.

Apple fox wrote:
Honestly, 5 games against the top codexes should be enough to get a solid feel for where a codex is mechanically if the game itself is functioning well.

I feel that the judgment tokens are more a management liking it than the writers and rule staff.
As seen players could see it’s issues instantly, so competent design should pick it up as well.

No, because there are dozens of datasheets that need testing, you're going to need at least 30 games because it doesn't take a lot of datasheets to break the game and if the internal balance is garbage at launch it will take many more pts update iterations before the internal balance is good compared to if the internal balance was good out the gate.

GW does not have competent designers, it's just the janitorial staff and Greg the garbage disposal guy who chimes in whenever he picks up garbage. In hindsight it was stupid to listen to him when he suggested they give Knights a 3++.

Asenion wrote:
Healthier is questionable here. That's like saying Cancer is Healthier then AIDS.

A cold is healthier than the black plague, a broken leg is better than a missing leg, come on. Better for one person to fall and hit their knee instead of having the black plague and spreading it to everyone else.

I put in game itself is function well for a reason :p and for mechanics it should be more than enough to see if they are oppressive and potentially unworkable.

And I do think GW has competent design staff, there mistakes are a group effort going up management for sure

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Dudeface wrote:

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.

And 90% winrates would cause others to have automatic losses skewing results. So idea that 10% is better to have than 90% because it skews stats worse is just flat out wrong. Both skew and badly.

Of course in practice 90% is WORSE because more people jump into them so other factions will get their WR's lowered by automatic losses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
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.

Any statistic system worth the name should rule out mirror matches out as custoden vs custoden isn't going to give any meaningful data.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So now that we have a new "imperial faction" does GW make an equal but opposite new "Dark Votann" faction?

GW classifies votann actually under xenos tab funnily enough

 vict0988 wrote:
You are way overestimating the difficulty. If you have 10-15 lists you want tested that's 30-45 games per faction, you don't need to revise points for every faction every month. Hiring 20 people would absolutely be expensive and wouldn't do a damn thing if they were just playing for fun, what GW needs is structure to their playtesting. Volunteers can absolutely do it, maybe GW shouldn't send the darn finished codex to them and should instead include them WAY earlier in the process so they have influence and cannot leak the thing.

I feel you are underestimating the issues of your method.
Because you are going "30-45 games will identify if this book as written seems overpowered".
I agree with that. I also agree 5 is too low. There are multiple ways of running every codex - and you need to test them into a variety of different armies. Is 3 Hekatons with Pre-nerfed Magna Rail the problem? Is 1 not so bad? What about the other gun options? How does someone spamming basic Hearthkyn feel? What about maxing bikes? Or 30 Hearthguard?

But GW surely don't just want to know something is overpowered, they also have to playtest the fix.

So lets say you have the original Votann codex. You play 30 games, it wins 22 of them, seems very strong and busted.
So lets change points.
But now you would want to test say Beserks at 25, Hearthguard at 40, Hekatons at 250. And Beserks at 30, Hearthguard at 45, Hekatons at 300. And possibly Beserks at 35, Hearthguard at 50, Hekatons at 350 etc. Which means another 90-135 games. The result of which would hopefully inform you where a sensible points level is.

Now I guess you could say "no, this is stupid, its obvious what the correct points are" - but it clearly isn't obvious for GW, hence why they've screwed it up for about 2/3rds of codexes.

Dudeface wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
By the way, if I remember correctly, the amount of time needed to exhaustively test a codex was based on testing a codex against every other codex (don't remember if supplements counted separately) for every Nephlim mission. It might have also included enough games so that each secondary could be picked once in each match up (I feel like the calculation was tailored towards LoV)? The end number of days/months/years it would take may also have taken into account 8-hour work days. I don't think it was counting "man-hours" (which would double the number of required play testing hours to account for two human players), but I could be wrong. I think it was assuming only one game occurring at a time.

I wasn't the one who made the calculation, just sharing what I remember.

2 people
3 hour game
25 factions
8 missions
3 * 8 * 2 * 25 hours = 1200 hours
+ 15% for admin/feedback/etc = 1215 hours

Average working day in the UK is 7.5 hours, 162 man hours, assuming that every second of working time fits nicely, which it won't. That you don't need to make changes and reset the cycle, which they will.

Real terms 2 games a day of the 600 needed = 300 days

So I'm guessing that the original calculation must have assumed 3 games and not multiplied by two people. Thanks for working out the numbers.

As for the $225k number people have been floating around for the cost of a playtest team, you're forgetting the cost of benefits and overhead. Still probably not untenably expensive in the grand scheme of things, but figure it's worth pointing out that the cost of an employee is not just their salary.

GW should invest in an Indian on Fiverr to do the basic efficiency math before they start thinking about hiring the guy who is going to hire the 20 playtesters to make the game more balanced.

Tyel wrote:
Now I guess you could say "no, this is stupid, its obvious what the correct points are" - but it clearly isn't obvious for GW, hence why they've screwed it up for about 2/3rds of codexes.

If the rules are fun then they don't need to change, only points do, fun takes precedence over balance, it's just that almost all the time noticeable imbalance is unfun, but that imbalance could be fixed with points in almost every circumstance. Imagine if C'tan didn't get to be their fun new selves because somebody got caught up in them needing to be worth no more than 250 pts?

I'd say if the basic points were reasonable, then after the first round of points changes the points would be good enough. If the basic points are ridiculous then you might need 3 iterations of points before they are reasonable. The remaining balance problems can be solved like now, with tournament stats and pro-player opinions changing things. I think my demand for balance on a new faction is probably smaller than for an existing faction like Custodes. "You thought that adding free rules to one of the top armies of 9th without adding pts to even their best units would be fair why exactly?" That's not even a reasonable first take on what their pts should be and then they planned to reduce their points further if I recall correctly.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
By the way, if I remember correctly, the amount of time needed to exhaustively test a codex was based on testing a codex against every other codex (don't remember if supplements counted separately) for every Nephlim mission. It might have also included enough games so that each secondary could be picked once in each match up (I feel like the calculation was tailored towards LoV)? The end number of days/months/years it would take may also have taken into account 8-hour work days. I don't think it was counting "man-hours" (which would double the number of required play testing hours to account for two human players), but I could be wrong. I think it was assuming only one game occurring at a time.

I wasn't the one who made the calculation, just sharing what I remember.

Fair enough. I would point out that's a pretty stupid way to calculate the time required. You really don't need to test every mission and every sub-faction and every single secondary in every combination. There's fundamentally very little difference between a Poisoned Tongue and a Black Heart Kabal, for example. Certainly not at the level the playtesting should be done at. there are also enough similarities in the GT missions that testing every single one probably isn't necessary, but you should play enough games that you end up doing that anyway.

It actually takes surprisingly few games to identify the really big problems in a Codex. You start to get diminishing returns on the usefulness of extra data after 10-12 games, so each round of playtesting probably needs to be about that number, iterated on multiple times over the course of the design process. I think the process above would have more merit if GW weren't in the habit of releasing things as clearly busted as LoV or Nids. Those problems really aren't difficult to identify through competent playtesting.

As an example, one of the first things you should be testing with any new unit is what happens when you spam it. I'm convinced GW simply doesn't do this because it's not how they tend to play the game. They were genuinely surprised by people taking 7 flyrants, or 11 PBCs, for example. I suspect they would have been equally shocked by people doing everything they could to max out Judgement Tokens and the number of magna-rails in their army. Testing this isn't difficult or time-consuming, it just requires the right processes and attitude. I'm not sure GW have either.

Slipspace wrote:


Fair enough. I would point out that's a pretty stupid way to calculate the time required. You really don't need to test every mission and every sub-faction and every single secondary in every combination. There's fundamentally very little difference between a Poisoned Tongue and a Black Heart Kabal, for example. Certainly not at the level the playtesting should be done at. there are also enough similarities in the GT missions that testing every single one probably isn't necessary, but you should play enough games that you end up doing that anyway.

It actually takes surprisingly few games to identify the really big problems in a Codex. You start to get diminishing returns on the usefulness of extra data after 10-12 games, so each round of playtesting probably needs to be about that number, iterated on multiple times over the course of the design process. I think the process above would have more merit if GW weren't in the habit of releasing things as clearly busted as LoV or Nids. Those problems really aren't difficult to identify through competent playtesting.

As an example, one of the first things you should be testing with any new unit is what happens when you spam it. I'm convinced GW simply doesn't do this because it's not how they tend to play the game. They were genuinely surprised by people taking 7 flyrants, or 11 PBCs, for example. I suspect they would have been equally shocked by people doing everything they could to max out Judgement Tokens and the number of magna-rails in their army. Testing this isn't difficult or time-consuming, it just requires the right processes and attitude. I'm not sure GW have either.

I 100% agree! I remember feeling like the point being made in the original source (no one seems to recall where as far as I know) was in slightly bad faith. Playing every secondary into every faction for every mission is just unnecessarily upping the number of games needed for the sake of making the number bigger in an attempt to prove their point (which I seem to recall was that extensive testing prior to release was unfeasible). It's not like this has to be all or nothing. I quite like the suggestion someone made where you have a few gold standard codices against which everything is balanced. It won't be perfect, but it should help keep down the power creep.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll also add that an effect of the trend towards "one of each option" for war gear means you can't spam the special weapons as much.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

Let the playtesters pick the gear they think is most cost-effective, GW can change the points on the other wargear to put it in line later since they are going with their insane twice-a-year pts update schedule anyway.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

How is pointing out you can't count the number of factions in the game defending anything? I'm replying to your comments about how playtesting should be easy because there aren't 25 factions. LOL.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

How is pointing out you can't count the number of factions in the game defending anything? I'm replying to your comments about how playtesting should be easy because there aren't 25 factions. LOL.

I wasn't wrong though. Harlequins are part of the Eldar codex as they should've been instead of getting an 8th edition codex. That'd be like you saying to test Scions as a whole separate faction.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

How is pointing out you can't count the number of factions in the game defending anything? I'm replying to your comments about how playtesting should be easy because there aren't 25 factions. LOL.

I wasn't wrong though. Harlequins are part of the Eldar codex as they should've been instead of getting an 8th edition codex. That'd be like you saying to test Scions as a whole separate faction.

You put more stuff in fewer books just increases the overheads on testing those fewer items. If you suddenly compress all the marine stuff together there's increased risk in things being missed. Compress all "evil marines" together and you're increasing the volume of testing needed.

But the point stands they're not 1 book, there are (soon to be) 4 chaos marine factions with bespoke rules. They all need equal attention regardless of what your personal opinion is due to how they're published.

To that end should you not test a scion only list in your eyes?

Table wrote:
This is going to be a very bad take for me, but one I am feeling none the less. It FEELS like some of the Squat supporters ( or those who did not want them nerfed ) are just salty because they were /are not the curbstompers they were before the nerfs.

I know its probably a small number of squat fans, but I sense it nonetheless.

That's 100% the case on the subreddit. Custodes players are the only other part of the fanbase that's the same way, I've found. Not every Custodes player, but more of them than the other segments of the fanbase.

Hecaton wrote:

Table wrote:
This is going to be a very bad take for me, but one I am feeling none the less. It FEELS like some of the Squat supporters ( or those who did not want them nerfed ) are just salty because they were /are not the curbstompers they were before the nerfs.

I know its probably a small number of squat fans, but I sense it nonetheless.

That's 100% the case on the subreddit. Custodes players are the only other part of the fanbase that's the same way, I've found. Not every Custodes player, but more of them than the other segments of the fanbase.

That's every fanbase. I've seen it for SM, Necrons, Craftworlds, Drukhari and Orks.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

How is pointing out you can't count the number of factions in the game defending anything? I'm replying to your comments about how playtesting should be easy because there aren't 25 factions. LOL.

I wasn't wrong though. Harlequins are part of the Eldar codex as they should've been instead of getting an 8th edition codex. That'd be like you saying to test Scions as a whole separate faction.

You put more stuff in fewer books just increases the overheads on testing those fewer items. If you suddenly compress all the marine stuff together there's increased risk in things being missed. Compress all "evil marines" together and you're increasing the volume of testing needed.

But the point stands they're not 1 book, there are (soon to be) 4 chaos marine factions with bespoke rules. They all need equal attention regardless of what your personal opinion is due to how they're published.

To that end should you not test a scion only list in your eyes?

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Scions, Custodes, Inquisitors, and Navy should all be relegated to WD factions. Barely able to be played, and barely functional. The fact that we had devs actually waste time on the Custodes Dex instead of fixing the glaring issues in the current meta is mind boggling. Scions don't need their own dex, they can get a page all to themselves int he Guard Codex. Inquisitors should be under DW and GK specifically. Custodes don't belong in the game, at all. It's like saying we need a dex for Imperitor Titans. And I MAIN Custodes. They are a crap faction that adds literally nothing to the game except exceptionally strong Spacemarines in Gold Armor.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Most of it doesn't NEED testing because those things can be eyed out. If you need to test that a 2++ army trait is broken, you shouldn't be writing rules to begin with. Same way your precious Votaan shouldn't have made it to the printers as is, but here we are because you're mad and want more army wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, Harlequins by themselves with nothing are too strong to begin with. The fact you think some Relic interaction is what leads to Voidweavers being a thing is humorous to be frank. They're too strong by themselves, duh.

Table wrote:
This is going to be a very bad take for me, but one I am feeling none the less. It FEELS like some of the Squat supporters ( or those who did not want them nerfed ) are just salty because they were /are not the curbstompers they were before the nerfs.

I know its probably a small number of squat fans, but I sense it nonetheless.

All this just to make excuses for GW not having play testers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think the argument is more "have more testers".

Whether its worthwhile for GW to have 10-20 people who just play 2 games of 40k every working day is an open question - but really, its probably not *that* expensive. That would give you say 200-400 games a month. Which would probably give you decent indications.

Admittedly whether these people would go mad playing this much and trying to keep the countless different rules versions in their heads is an open question.

I guess for "cheap" you could have say 5-10 archetype armies that you play into and then see how it feels. If its a bit much, it should be obvious. I feel though there are quite a few different sort of lists out there, and so going "right, one game into Marines, tick" isn't really going to give you much.

You are way overestimating the difficulty. If you have 10-15 lists you want tested that's 30-45 games per faction, you don't need to revise points for every faction every month. Hiring 20 people would absolutely be expensive and wouldn't do a damn thing if they were just playing for fun, what GW needs is structure to their playtesting. Volunteers can absolutely do it, maybe GW shouldn't send the darn finished codex to them and should instead include them WAY earlier in the process so they have influence and cannot leak the thing.

Exactly. Other companies have play testers. People will do it for free. It is crazy how these people are literally arguing that GW should not conduct play testing.

Instead their suggestion is to sacrifice 10 percent of the player base so the other 90 percent can have fun. It makes no sense at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Most of it doesn't NEED testing because those things can be eyed out. If you need to test that a 2++ army trait is broken, you shouldn't be writing rules to begin with. Same way your precious Votaan shouldn't have made it to the printers as is, but here we are because you're mad and want more army wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, Harlequins by themselves with nothing are too strong to begin with. The fact you think some Relic interaction is what leads to Voidweavers being a thing is humorous to be frank. They're too strong by themselves, duh.

You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Again another good reiteration of an obvious point.

But nope - instead the solution is to ruin the game for some players so that GW doesn't have to play test i.e. sacrifice the 10 percent for the 90 percent.

Btw I love how this person is allowed to make accusations and insult you over instead of addressing the substance of your points.

I mean has this person presented any evidence at all you are a Votann player or just want auto-wins?

Why are they allowed to just make these kinds of insulting accusations with impunity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Also are you seriously suggesting that Voidweavers are somehow performing different vs Ulthwe or Sam Hain? Man that's some non logic if I've ever seen it

No, you didn't list harlequins as an army, because they're in the eldar book they wouldn't be considered an additional force and there's a reasonable chance they'd get missed. Hence the "eldar book" being tested with an ulthwe list.

Also in your big brain list of inaccuracies those extra books being rolled back in together adds a huge swathe of extra stuff that needs testing. Fewer books doesn't equal fewer games to test the contents. But as per usual you've made some weird hysterical "GW is dumb" comment and act surprised when it turns out its complete garbage.

Voidweavers were broken no matter who took them LOL. Pure Harlequins just made them better.

Please try harder to defend Votaan

Again do you have any evidence that this person is a Votann player? Why do you keep saying this over and over and then saying they are " just mad about not getting easy wins", etc..

It sounds like you are just insulting and accusing people at this point.

Asenion wrote:
You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?

That's a fascinating claim given the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can look at your post history and see that you've made three different threads on your squat lists:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807079.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807481.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807118.page

(Oh, and I'm sure it's no coincidence at all that all three of them are "friendly/casual" lists with 3x railgun land fortress and the full judgement token buff stacking on them.)

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?

That's a fascinating claim given the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can look at your post history and see that you've made three different threads on your squat lists:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807079.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807481.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807118.page

(Oh, and I'm sure it's no coincidence at all that all three of them are "friendly/casual" lists with 3x railgun land fortress and the full judgement token buff stacking on them.)

They were asking for evidence that I was leagues player...

Dudeface wrote:


And you're here leveling accusations I want free wins for a faction I don't own, don't want to own and openly stated I feel needed a nerf in this very thread and comment chain.

Exactly. This is the fifth or sixth time they've done this. As if anyone who disagrees with how GW handled the issue is a hard core Votann player with these evil motives.

Some have even started throwing f bombs with no consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?

That's a fascinating claim given the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can look at your post history and see that you've made three different threads on your squat lists:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807079.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807481.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807118.page

(Oh, and I'm sure it's no coincidence at all that all three of them are "friendly/casual" lists with 3x railgun land fortress and the full judgement token buff stacking on them.)

Lol. I haven't played with a single one of those armies. And I can't believe you are borderline stalking me at this point.

I don't own the models or play at tournaments even. Have not even bought the Codex. I'm just designing armies for the new faction for fun.

I am not a Votann player I just designed armies like I do for other factions. Am I not allowed to do this now?

In any case, why should I even have to be defending myself?

I mean what happens if your wrong and not everyone disagreeing with you is some Votann player wanting easy wins - does your case fall apart?

If so it suggests the substance of your arguments are pretty flimsy.

Dudeface wrote:
They were asking for evidence that I was leagues player...

Not in the part I quoted:

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asenion wrote:
I haven't played with a single one of those armies.

"I'm not a squat player, I just make "friendly" army lists that spam their best unit and multiple threads complaining about the fact that it got nerfed."

Everyone believes you.

And I can't believe you are borderline stalking me at this point.

"I can't believe someone looked at my public post history to see that my claims are inconsistent with my past actions."

Given your passionate interest in apologies for insulting comments I assume you'll be very quick to apologize for accusing me of "borderline stalking".

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

"More stuff in fewer books" it's not even 10 units.

Scion only doesn't need to be tested because Scions as troops doesn't affect their actual tabletop role. They're not a separate army and shouldn't have gotten a 6th/7th edition codex to begin with.

Heard it here first, the interactions between psychic disciplines, warlord traits, subfaction benefits, relics and secondaries do not need testing.

Better yet "doesn't need testing as there's not even 10 units" - see harlequins.

Most of it doesn't NEED testing because those things can be eyed out. If you need to test that a 2++ army trait is broken, you shouldn't be writing rules to begin with. Same way your precious Votaan shouldn't have made it to the printers as is, but here we are because you're mad and want more army wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And quite frankly, Harlequins by themselves with nothing are too strong to begin with. The fact you think some Relic interaction is what leads to Voidweavers being a thing is humorous to be frank. They're too strong by themselves, duh.

I'm getting annoyed that I keep having to repeat myself that I do not own LoV, do not intend to and never have. Obviously you lack reading comprehension because at no point did I state that voidweavers were broken due to a relic interaction.

You need to make your mind up. You claim there aren't 25 factions, that most combinations aren't worth testing, that stuff is obvious enough it can be gotten right without looking. You then simultaneously tell us about how crap GW are at playtesting and how poor their publications are and they miss things. Which is it? How would you playtest a new faction?

So either you're a fething savant who can do the job of a full team entirely mentally over the course of an afternoon and evidently it's everyone else who is a smooth brain. The alternative is that as per usual you write incoherent babble trying to be some teenage black Knight edge lord, antagonising pointless debate over things by misinterpreting intentionally and arguing in bad faith.

Dudeface wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
You are just spamming accusations without any evidence at all at this point.

For the record I don't own any Votann models, I don't even own the Codex and I don't play as Votann. I don't play at tournaments either.

Any other BS accusations you want to throw out?

That's a fascinating claim given the fact that this is a public forum where anyone can look at your post history and see that you've made three different threads on your squat lists:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807079.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807481.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807118.page

(Oh, and I'm sure it's no coincidence at all that all three of them are "friendly/casual" lists with 3x railgun land fortress and the full judgement token buff stacking on them.)

They were asking for evidence that I was leagues player...

This too..I noticed 90 percent of these accusations were directed at you.

I hope you don't own any Votann models or bought the Codex btw, because it may considered irrefutable evidence of you being a life-long Votann fanboy wanting a 1 round 99 percent win rate.