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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
feth off Karol, we've told you multiple times before that its possible for us to have fun regardless of the outcome.

I personally would rather lose a close game than win a runaway one.

Yeah, I don't think they're getting that OTHER people may have different expectations/desires out of the game.

I sure as gak don't play to lose, but neither is winning the only thing that matters. As much as I despise organized competitive stuff I can totally understand that some may like it. The big difference is that it appears(at least superficially) to be the ONLY thing some get out of the game/hobby. Much to the detrimental effect on others and if you're not with 'em you're obviously against 'em mentality!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:


Winning may not be all there is to having fun, but the perception of having a decent chance at winning? Most of us probably want that to have a chance at having fun.

If you can't seriously look at an opposing army(knowing what it has since the game has perfect information) and not see that you're gonna get curbstomped, that sucks.

But I have gone up against lists that I know will demolish mine and still had fun;
Denying targets for opponent(I didn't have a shooti g phase till t3....neither did they(so even against massive odds, still had fun)
Playing cat n mouse(self explanatory)
Saying "I'm gonna take that hill", irrespective of actual chances!(c'mon, sooooo many war stories/medals are earned that way). Even better when its plastic dudes in the Grimdarkness of the 41st Millennium & No one dies for realsy's.

Fun is objective, which is my whole point. Now if your playing for $ then sure I'd want a roughly equal chance, but the fact people want to play 40k for it boggles my mind.

Karol wrote:
If you take something like 80%+ represenation of all tyranids are leviathan, pre nerfs, and mirrors leviathan lists win over non leviathan lists that it is telling.

That's not what people mean by "ignore mirror matches". You aren't ignoring the representation of a faction, you're just taking out mirror matches when looking at its win rate. Any match where both players had the same faction is removed from the data set before calculating win rates. For example, let's say the new guard codex does have those 10 point Baneblades. The result would be an absurdly overpowered codex that would easily win every game against any other faction. And the only players who would ever show up at a tournament would be the people who own guard armies with the maximum number of Baneblades, everyone else would stay home because automatically losing to people who own the good army isn't fun. So how do we handle this?

If you include mirror matches then the win rate data says that everything is fine. Guard have a perfect 50% win rate because virtually every match is guard vs. guard. In the mirror match you by definition must have one win and one loss for the faction.

If you exclude mirror matches you recognize that the meta is completely broken. Guard have a 100% non-mirror win rate. The win rate data correctly recognizes that guard are beating every non-guard opponent who bothers to show up, and the only time the Baneblade spam list ever loses is against another Baneblade spam list.

Now do you see why win rate data must always exclude mirror matches?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Now if your playing for $ then sure I'd want a roughly equal chance, but the fact people want to play 40k for it boggles my mind.

Why is it mind-boggling? Matches where the outcome is decided purely by who bought stronger rules aren't fun. If I'm going to play a game with a heroic last stand I want to play it as a narrative game where a last stand scenario fits the story, not because my opponent's rules are much stronger than mine and the only way to even attempt to achieve a meaningful goal is to pretend that a standard matched play mission is a last stand scenario that my opponent isn't even aware of.

 Tyran wrote:
Karol isn't arguing about winning or losing once, but about losing most of the time. And they have a point.

Sure we all have fun in a close game we lost, but I'm guessing most of us didn't have fun in those games we lost and it wasn't even close. And being on the bad side of a losing streak? That can even kill someone's enjoyment of the hobby.

Winning may not be all there is to having fun, but the perception of having a decent chance at winning? Most of us probably want that to have a chance at having fun.

For what it's worth, I'm still going strong after ~10 months back in the game. I've won exactly one match. Usually play a couple times a month. Personally, it comes down to getting my enjoyment out of a combination of making my opponent react to my decisions and firing big guns . Besides, what kind of guardsman would I be if I faltered in the face of a near certain loss? Gotta hold the line.

Where the voltan nerfed to quickly...

Yes and NO.

Yes
There was no need for the change to the points cost for models. there cost afectivness and efishancy per point has not yeat be trully established. this was pure panic overreation.

NO, sort of..
The change to grudge token's and the overkill sinergys of them with railguns and some obviuse combio's should have been revealid in internal play testing way before the book was 'finalised' and the auto wounds count as 6's removed at that time.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Karol isn't arguing about winning or losing once, but about losing most of the time. And they have a point.

Sure we all have fun in a close game we lost, but I'm guessing most of us didn't have fun in those games we lost and it wasn't even close. And being on the bad side of a losing streak? That can even kill someone's enjoyment of the hobby.

Winning may not be all there is to having fun, but the perception of having a decent chance at winning? Most of us probably want that to have a chance at having fun.

For what it's worth, I'm still going strong after ~10 months back in the game. I've won exactly one match. Usually play a couple times a month. Personally, it comes down to getting my enjoyment out of a combination of making my opponent react to my decisions and firing big guns . Besides, what kind of guardsman would I be if I faltered in the face of a near certain loss? Gotta hold the line.

Anecdotal, but I recently started playing my CSM again. Having a hard time with them, definitely losing more than winning.

I was playing Deathwatch and Grey Knights for about a year while I waited for the new CSM codex. Won more, but it wasn't the same.

Winning is not everything. I can understand not wanting to lose every game, but I don't know an army where that's the case.

TLDR I believe the pre-release nerf to LoV was largely a PR issue.

While I'm not a fan of any of this, I have to agree with GW in that it's still too soon to tell where LoV are going to slot into things. I think GW is making the right call by allowing the codex and all of the LoV units to be available and then allowing the meta (I just threw up a little in my mouth using that word) to adjust before making any additional changes.

Kind of think it depends on what people feel an "auto-loss" looks like. Which is in turn I think why certain kinds of imbalance provoke mass outcry from the professional 40k crowd - and others... don't. They provoke a "some faction has to be best, get with the programme" sort of response.

Its not fun to lose in non-interactive ways. This is often why movement abilities are very contentious. If I can move units around (see for example pre-nerf Encircle the Prey) and you can't... well, its almost like I'm playing a different game. The current situation with certain factions secondaries can feel like this, where they just run away on points... and you don't. Even if the "fighting" element of the game is going relatively evenly. ("My whole army is Obsec" kind of goes the same way.)

Which is why the Magna Rail got so much attention rather than Votann generally being aggressively pointed. You shouldn't have the ability (via special rules etc) to just point and remove a unit from the table (or inflict 8-12 wounds that roll over). By contrast 22 point Beserks are clearly undercosted compared to other units in the game - but they are at least comparable to said units. When they charge and murder a unit, its not different to say Possessed doing the same, Incubi doing the same etc.

Tyel wrote:


Which is why the Magna Rail got so much attention rather than Votann generally being aggressively pointed.

And super aggressively pointed they were. An Intercessor was just under the cost of two basic Votaan dudes. The Intercessor is not twice as durable, but the Votaan have literally twice the offense.

Tyel wrote:
Kind of think it depends on what people feel an "auto-loss" looks like. Which is in turn I think why certain kinds of imbalance provoke mass outcry from the professional 40k crowd - and others... don't. They provoke a "some faction has to be best, get with the programme" sort of response.

Its not fun to lose in non-interactive ways. This is often why movement abilities are very contentious. If I can move units around (see for example pre-nerf Encircle the Prey) and you can't... well, its almost like I'm playing a different game. The current situation with certain factions secondaries can feel like this, where they just run away on points... and you don't. Even if the "fighting" element of the game is going relatively evenly. ("My whole army is Obsec" kind of goes the same way.)

Which is why the Magna Rail got so much attention rather than Votann generally being aggressively pointed. You shouldn't have the ability (via special rules etc) to just point and remove a unit from the table (or inflict 8-12 wounds that roll over). By contrast 22 point Beserks are clearly undercosted compared to other units in the game - but they are at least comparable to said units. When they charge and murder a unit, its not different to say Possessed doing the same, Incubi doing the same etc.

Yea most unfun games I have is when I can't do anything. Not even kill anything...One good example would be say previous lumineth book with 4 flying foxes. If I'm up against it with say khorne, gloomspite gits, slaves to darkness, fyreslayers or basically any melee army without capability to shoot those foxes to death and fast I literally CANNOT do anything to his army. Foxes form up flying wall, I move in next to them, they then move out of charge range...I literally could not charge without cheating...And melee armies can't thus kill them. Literally all I can do is try to move to objectives ASAP and hope like hell I score enough to win without killing anything as any chance of me getting to combat depends on opponent allowing as I literally could not get there without cheating...

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:


Which is why the Magna Rail got so much attention rather than Votann generally being aggressively pointed.

And super aggressively pointed they were. An Intercessor was just under the cost of two basic Votaan dudes. The Intercessor is not twice as durable, but the Votaan have literally twice the offense.

No the Intercessor is way more durable than the 2 Vottaan..

1st he has a 3+save the Votaan only has a 4+. This makes a masive diferance in there base servivability.

the intercessor has a 2 out of 3 chance of taking a shot and serviving where as the Votann only have a 1/2.

ok so they both have armour of contempt so -1 saves don't mater
but the marine has 'Trans Human' and so can reduce the damage by one.
just take an assault cannon spraying over these groups.

4 hits, 2 wounds apiece. no save mod, the marine has 2 chances to save and as long as he makes 1 he lives, but the Votaan only have a 50% chance to save and each time they fail they lose a dud....

so really who's worth more points?

the only way to make up for the gak servivablity is to up there Firepower to compensate. and at the moment you can NOT get enough kin in the army to do so.

The issue is that against 1 damage weapons (especially AP-/AP-1 weapons) Intercessors expect to give up fewer points.

But against 2+ damage weapons its the other way around. If 2 damage was really rare that might no matter - but it isn't really.

And Intercessors do basically have the same shooting damage output of the Heathkyn despite costing 60% as much.

Morty_Jhones wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:


Which is why the Magna Rail got so much attention rather than Votann generally being aggressively pointed.

And super aggressively pointed they were. An Intercessor was just under the cost of two basic Votaan dudes. The Intercessor is not twice as durable, but the Votaan have literally twice the offense.

No the Intercessor is way more durable than the 2 Vottaan..

1st he has a 3+save the Votaan only has a 4+. This makes a masive diferance in there base servivability.

the intercessor has a 2 out of 3 chance of taking a shot and serviving where as the Votann only have a 1/2.

ok so they both have armour of contempt so -1 saves don't mater
but the marine has 'Trans Human' and so can reduce the damage by one.
just take an assault cannon spraying over these groups.

4 hits, 2 wounds apiece. no save mod, the marine has 2 chances to save and as long as he makes 1 he lives, but the Votaan only have a 50% chance to save and each time they fail they lose a dud....

so really who's worth more points?

the only way to make up for the gak servivablity is to up there Firepower to compensate. and at the moment you can NOT get enough kin in the army to do so.

LOL this was a serious post was it?

The difference in durability is just 4+ vs 3+. Both have AoC, and the 4+ has a built in protection against rerolling any wounds.
So the Intercessor is not really twice as durable for the points, and in the meantime the Votaan are twice the offense.

4+ vs 3+ is 50% more damage taken against AP0 (or AP-1, due to AoC or Void Armor).
In cover, that grows to taking twice as much damage.

Not saying they were correctly pointed, but that save difference matters.

Morty_Jhones wrote:
1st he has a 3+save the Votaan only has a 4+. This makes a masive diferance in there base servivability.

Not in the world of massively inflated gak, especially on xeno/chaos guns. When that save is 5/6+ to Votann 6/7+, you have 16% better chance of saving most of the time. Spoiler alert, SM aren't 16% more expensive. And that's when enemy unit can't throw a bucket of mortals at you, or has -5/6 AP, which is increasingly common, as then you're paying for absolutely nothing.

marine has 2 chances to save

Not when even the dumbest gak that has no business doing so has D2, with the stat being worth so little these times GW writers started to spam D3 in places. When even XIX century revolvers crudely banged together from scrap metal, a street sign, or a piece of junk welded to a metal pipe have D2 that W2 stat not only loses its luster, W1 becomes objectively superior as you pay extra points for absolutely nothing.

For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Tyel wrote:
For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Fair play, likely still need some tuning. I'm more concerned that they're backed into a corner now where points are the only place they're willing to go rather than tackling the judgement mechanic.

Tyel wrote:
For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Can you share where you get those statistics, all i found is that Votanns have exactly 50% win rate within week and all time win rate 42.66%.

Angra wrote:

Tyel wrote:
For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Can you share where you get those statistics, all i found is that Votanns have exactly 50% win rate within week and all time win rate 42.66%.

r/WarhammerCompetative this weeks "Meta Monday" shows a 59% win rate and a tournament 1st place finishing at PCG Hosts Lightly Salted's 40K Fall GT.

Dudeface wrote:

Tyel wrote:
For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Fair play, likely still need some tuning. I'm more concerned that they're backed into a corner now where points are the only place they're willing to go rather than tackling the judgement mechanic.

They aren't backed into any type of corner. At any moment they could release some new rules gak.

Mariongodspeed wrote:

Angra wrote:

Tyel wrote:
For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Can you share where you get those statistics, all i found is that Votanns have exactly 50% win rate within week and all time win rate 42.66%.

r/WarhammerCompetative this weeks "Meta Monday" shows a 59% win rate and a tournament 1st place finishing at PCG Hosts Lightly Salted's 40K Fall GT.

Yes, 1 weekend winning rate 59% and 6 weeks win rate 51%, so i say its pretty average win rate for faction that everyone keeps saying its OP. Top5% not even shown. because thats only one player got in top5%.

Uuuh...People said it was OP BEFORE nerfs...

...ummm...what did YOU think nerfs were going to do? Increase the win rate?

Gee. Look at that. Votann not broken as hell after getting hefty nerfs. Imagine what their win rate would be if they hadn't been hit by one of the biggest nerf hammers GW has hit with ever? Guess by some weird logic their win rate would be lower then? Or do you think nerf bat that was so huge would have zero impact?

Gee. Maybe the nerfs actually put them from OP as hell to about right? Did that thought cross your mind?

tneva82 wrote:
Uuuh...People said it was OP BEFORE nerfs...

...ummm...what did YOU think nerfs were going to do? Increase the win rate?

Gee. Look at that. Votann not broken as hell after getting hefty nerfs. Imagine what their win rate would be if they hadn't been hit by one of the biggest nerf hammers GW has hit with ever? Guess by some weird logic their win rate would be lower then? Or do you think nerf bat that was so huge would have zero impact?

Gee. Maybe the nerfs actually put them from OP as hell to about right? Did that thought cross your mind?

That was one weekend win rate% , Goonhammer site shows all time win rate 42.66% (Zephilim GT pack) and that's gakky win%, not as gakky that marines (non BA) , Adeptus Mechanicus and some other factions with under 40% win rates, but maybe, just maybe GW over nerfed Votaans ?

The bulk of the Votann range was not available before last weekend. Some tournaments may let you proxy whatever you like - but a lot won't. The situation before is therefore somewhat meaningless. I imagine Codex: "Hearthkyn+Pioneers" had problems, but its not a realistic reflection of the book. And if that was the basis for why people claimed "the codex had been over-nerfed", it was stupid.

Ultimately the 59% may be skewed by the small number of players - we shall see what happens next weekend.

It's much more reasonable than it's pre-nerfed version. Still pretty good. Just most tourneya didn't allow the full range of minis.

Angra wrote:

Mariongodspeed wrote:

Angra wrote:

Tyel wrote:
For those still playing at home.

Early days obviously - but this weekend's tournament scene saw 9 Votann lists, 44 games and a 59% win rate.

So its possible whatever data was producing the 30% win rates allegedly achieved in "private tournaments" was skewed.

Can you share where you get those statistics, all i found is that Votanns have exactly 50% win rate within week and all time win rate 42.66%.

r/WarhammerCompetative this weeks "Meta Monday" shows a 59% win rate and a tournament 1st place finishing at PCG Hosts Lightly Salted's 40K Fall GT.

Yes, 1 weekend winning rate 59% and 6 weeks win rate 51%, so i say its pretty average win rate for faction that everyone keeps saying its OP. Top5% not even shown. because thats only one player got in top5%.

The whole range of models has only been available for a single weekend of tournament play so far. Even then, many tournaments may have had cut-off dates for list submission that effectively ruled Votann out. A 6-week win rate is pretty meaningless for LoV at the moment, as is data from a single weekend when many players are probably still assembling and painting their armies. We'll likely need to wait until December, or the New Year to get a proper picture for LoV.

Didn't LoV just take the top spot at a tourny over the weekend? I saw a video on youtube that said they did in the title.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Didn't LoV just take the top spot at a tourny over the weekend? I saw a video on youtube that said they did in the title.

They did. It was a Kronus Hegemony melee list that made me think, "What if Bloody Rose Sisters, but with dwarves instead of nuns?" The guy had a High Kahl, a Brokhyr Forge-Master, and an Einhyr Champion, all tooled up with relics and traits, 3 units of Hearthkyn, 3 units of Beserks, a unit of Hearthguard, 2 units of bikes, and 2 sagitaurs. I applaud the guy for going all-in on the melee beat-em-up plan, as the list was fairly well-tuned, but it absolutely wasn't what I would have expected.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
They did. It was a Kronus Hegemony melee list that made me think, "What if Bloody Rose Sisters, but with dwarves instead of nuns?" The guy had a High Kahl, a Brokhyr Forge-Master, and an Einhyr Champion, all tooled up with relics and traits, 3 units of Hearthkyn, 3 units of Beserks, a unit of Hearthguard, 2 units of bikes, and 2 sagitaurs. I applaud the guy for going all-in on the melee beat-em-up plan, as the list was fairly well-tuned, but it absolutely wasn't what I would have expected.

I kind of feel once people realised they were going to nerf the super railgun combo, Beserks were always going to be the carry unit. Comically broken at 22 - still good at 30.

I tend to distrust these articles, but as it agrees with my opinion I'll trust it just this once - that is how this works right?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/01/warhammer-40000-metawatch-2022-in-review-12-codexes-4-dataslates-2-mission-packs-and-one-new-army/

Apparently Votann weren't nerfed prematurely as they are enjoying their 3rd best faction in the game 56% win rate.

When compared to the November 3rd stats, it appears that the middle of the pack has remained consistent, but the top has been crushed down 3-6% by the emergence of the daemons and votann, whilst the inclusion of tzeentch daemons has boosted thousand sons. Sadly the bottom few factions (various marines and admech) have continued to lose ground.

For no reason that I can understand the GSC have gained 5%, I can only surmise that there's been a shift in the units other armies are fielding which has given the a boost.

My original thoughts about the votann nerf were that it didn't go quite far enough, and that seems (just) right. If all the other top end factions get an appropriate nerf, then votann will also need a small targeted nerf to prevent them sitting above the others.

Fingers crossed there's some good news for loyalist marines and admech in Janaury.