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.

99% of LOV players are playing in these tournaments without models for the majority of the codex. Id be shocked if it doesn't climb dramatically once people have the full range for more then a few days

I hope OP is right and all the nerfs need to get removed, that would reveal just how incompetent GW is. People were saying in some of the comparisons that Necron Warriors are some of the worst units in 9th and I'm really confused because Warriors are pretty amazing, they might not be popular in tournaments right this moment but we don't have to go back far to see them being considered mandatory in Necron lists and Necrons occasionally getting top 4s.

TreeStewges wrote:
They should just use the SM codex as the bench mark for every edition.

That wouldn't be necessary if they kept a red thread with every faction being tested against the one that was released previously, but Drukhari did not seem to have been tested against any previous codices and at that point such a project would have fallen off the rails.

It isn’t practical to test against every army though, someone did some basic math on that not too long ago and it would take 1-2 years to do it, however they did the math.

Got a link? That seems like complete BS. You need 50 games to test each faction, whether that is against Tyranids or SM really doesn't matter, although I think that a decent number of the games should be against SM because they should be the balance bedrock of the game because they are so popular. For that to take 2 years it'd be 1 playtest every other week. You could playtest every codex over 2 years with just 13 playtests per week. That's 10 playtesters doing this in their spare time to ensure balance + another 5-15 playtesters that make sure it is fun and fluffy. 500 playtests with mostly the same list would just be a waste of time, 50 playtests with 13 vastly different lists is enough to map things out pretty accurately.

 Flinty wrote:
Addendum - is it now at the point where they would be better off not printing points costs in new codices, and just drop a pdf at the point of the army release to let players fill in the blanks?

No, just test the codexes before printing them. If they start doing that for 10th it wouldn't be noticeable for the release schedule, we'd just get 10th a couple months later. You did nail one thing though, they shouldn't be so eager to change rules, if playtesters liked the original JT mechanic then it shouldn't be changed just because the units are broken, increasing points ought to be enough. Wide-spread errata makes physical codexes worthless, points can just be printed out and added at the back of the book.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Ok? That's how math works. But when the error margin on your analysis is +/- 5%

And who is determining this exactly? Someone who adds or subtracts variables based on how "lazy" he or she feels at a given time?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
30% win rate (which is what I assume you mean, if squats currently have a 30% loss rate they need major nerfs) is irrelevant

Translation - Any evidence for my case counts, all the evidence against my case doesn't count.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
because that data set is not using the real codex.

What? What do you think they were using at these Tournaments - office memos?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
I can cite a 10% win rate for space marines operating on the restriction that they can only take basic captains and bolter tactical squads with no upgrades or stratagems permitted and that 10% win rate may in fact be accurate for what the crippled pseudo-army is capable of but that doesn't mean the data has anything to do with the performance of the real space marine codex.

And? Are you claiming that all these Tournaments applied these special handicaps to Votann and only Votann in this way?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

That's why play testing is critical.

Once again: people did playtest it. Their playtesting confirmed the initial impression that the codex was completely out of line.

Yes - in non-competitive games and came to conclusions often times after just 1 play test. 2 if they were feeling generous i.e. Tabletop Titans.

So like 5 play tests are sufficient to determine that the faction needs to be nerfed but 50-100 are not sufficient data sets to say a nerf is premature. That's literally what you're saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
99% of LOV players are playing in these tournaments without models for the majority of the codex. Id be shocked if it doesn't climb dramatically once people have the full range for more then a few days

I highly doubt even if Votann have an abysmal win rate after that any of these people will admit they're wrong or make the same effort to reverse their incorrect decision that they put into shoving this obvious blunder onto the rest of the Community.

Asenion wrote:
And who is determining this exactly? Somehow who adds or subtracts variables based on how "lazy" he or she feels at a given time?

It's a hypothetical example with made up numbers in response to your claim of "BUT APPROXIMATIONS". Yes, approximations are a thing. No, approximations are not likely to be a factor when the math is so egregiously out of line with everything else.

Translation - Any evidence for my case counts, all the evidence against my case doesn't count.

Translation: they are literally not playing with the same codex. You can't argue that Tau are overpowered because Tyranids have a 60% win rate.

What? What do you think they were using at these Tournaments - office memos?

You do know that many, if not all, events are not allowing the unreleased units, right? Most of that 30% win rate is being generated by players using a partial codex, not the real codex that we will see in the near future once the full model range is out.

And? Are you claiming that all these Tournaments applied these special handicaps to Votann and only Votann in this way?

Yes, and this is indisputable fact. Squats are the only faction that has some of their units banned entirely in competitive play and only get to use a partial codex. Why do you think this is in any way a controversial claim?

So like 5 play tests are sufficient to determine that the faction needs to be nerfed but 50-100 are not sufficient data sets to say a nerf is premature. That's literally what you're saying.

5 playtest games can be sufficient if the faction is overpowered enough that the conclusion is obvious. If the new guard codex has 10 point Baneblades it will not take very many games to conclude the obvious: that it's really ****ing broken and needs to be fixed.

50-100 playtest games of Tau vs. space marines will not tell you anything about whether or not the Tyranid codex is overpowered.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

It's a hypothetical example with made up numbers in response to your claim of "BUT APPROXIMATIONS". Yes, approximations are a thing. No, approximations are not likely to be a factor when the math is so egregiously out of line with everything else.

This actually reminds me of a joke skit about "Breaking Bad" called " Making Math":

" We're making math that is 99 percent accurate!"

" Soo...that means it's wrong."

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Translation: they are literally not playing with the same codex. You can't argue that Tau are overpowered because Tyranids have a 60% win rate.

Oh so if Tyranids have a 99 percent win rate we can't say Tyranids are Over-Powered because every faction uses a different Codex.

If Orks have a 0 percent win rate we can't argue that Orks need to be buffed for the same reason. Give me a break.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
You do know that many, if not all, events are not allowing the unreleased units, right? Most of that 30% win rate is being generated by players using a partial codex, not the real codex that we will see in the near future once the full model range is out.

Granted but all your argument from "math" was primarily based on JTs being so over powered that they broke the game and JTs are still in play with a minor nerf and we aren't seeing any of this.

The hypothesis was tested - the results are the opposite of what the hypothesis predicted. In science this is know as a failed hypothesis.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Yes, and this is indisputable fact. Squats are the only faction that has some of their units banned entirely in competitive play

Nope, other new factions had similar bans at their launch and most achieved win rates well above average.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

So like 5 play tests are sufficient to determine that the faction needs to be nerfed but 50-100 are not sufficient data sets to say a nerf is premature. That's literally what you're saying.

5 playtest games can be sufficient if the faction is overpowered enough that the conclusion is obvious. If the new guard codex has 10 point Baneblades it will not take very many games to conclude the obvious: that it's really ****ing broken and needs to be fixed.

50-100 playtest games of Tau vs. space marines will not tell you anything about whether or not the Tyranid codex is overpowered.

Oh so according to that logic 1 play test can be sufficient to prove your point but 1000 play tests showing the contrary are baseless because " the conclusion is obvious."

Asenion wrote:
Oh so if Tyranids have a 99 percent win rate we can't say Tyranids are Over-Powered because every faction uses a different Codex.

If Orks have a 0 percent win rate we can't argue that Orks need to be buffed for the same reason. Give me a break.

No, that is not the same. You are making the argument that Tyranids are overpowered because Tau have a 99% win rate, and that Orks need to be buffed because Eldar have a 0% win rate. None of your tournament win rate data is in any way relevant because very few, if any, of those games are using the real squat codex.

Granted but all your argument from "math" was primarily based on JTs being so over powered that they broke the game and JTs are still in play with a minor nerf and we aren't seeing any of this.

The major issue with judgement tokens was with a unit that is currently banned in tournament play.

Nope, other new factions had similar bans at their launch and most achieved win rates well above average.

Not at all true. Squats are a special case because they're an entirely new army. Other factions haven't had the same kind of partial release and have not had significant parts of the codex banned for the first month or two.

Oh so according to that logic 1 play test can be sufficient to prove your point but 1000 play tests showing the contrary are baseless because " the conclusion is obvious."

Please try to read more carefully.

One game with 10 point Baneblades can demonstrate the obvious: that 10 point Baneblades are overpowered.

1000 games of Eldar vs. Orks can not tell you anything about balance questions involving Baneblades because nobody is playing guard in those games.

Your supposed "1000 tests" do not tell you anything useful about the balance of the squat codex because the 1000 games are not being played with the squat codex.

Winrate itself isn’t a perfect calculator of ballance, just one peace.

Even if they were 50% a good number to aim for, no one I think would be happy if that balance was achieved entire of the way judgment tokens break other areas of the game.
Honestly it’s bad design, and I think the math highlights why it is.

Asenion wrote:

And? Are you claiming that all these Tournaments applied these special handicaps to Votann and only Votann in this way?

Tournament's didn't. GW did.

In case you haven't heard....THE MODELS ONLY GOT RELEASED LIKE LAST SATURDAY! And that's for preorder...

So the votann armies in general have been missing most of the units in tournaments because YOU CANNOT BUY THEM YET!

If you disagree go to your FLGS and try to buy land fortress. Or berserkers. Try to get packet with you home. Short of store breaking their agreeements you can't do that.

Marines meanwhile have the units in codex on sale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asenion wrote:

Granted but all your argument from "math" was primarily based on JTs being so over powered that they broke the game and JTs are still in play with a minor nerf and we aren't seeing any of this.

The hypothesis was tested - the results are the opposite of what the hypothesis predicted. In science this is know as a failed hypothesis.

Funny that. JT's being nerfed.

Gee. No wonder they aren't broken OP because they got nerfed...Funny that. Nerfs doing what they were meant to do. What? You were expecting nerfs to make them more powerful? You have funny ideas.

tneva82 wrote:
In case you haven't heard....THE MODELS ONLY GOT RELEASED LIKE LAST SATURDAY! And that's for preorder...
So the votann armies in general have been missing most of the units in tournaments because YOU CANNOT BUY THEM YET!
If you disagree go to your FLGS and try to buy land fortress. Or berserkers. Try to get packet with you home. Short of store breaking their agreeements you can't do that.

I'm sure the FLGS owners would love to be able to sell you models anyway, but in the case of Votann almost none of them already has the new kits.
Stores receive the new releases mid week, usually either on Thursday or Friday depending on the couriers bringing them stuff.

The few kits already in the wild are those sent by GW directly to influencers and content creators (painters, bat reps channels, review channels). And even then, those few lucky ones received 1x of each new kit.

In order to see the real power of LoV we need to wait at least a month, since players need time to buy, assemble and paint (at least to battle ready standard) the meta list. Assuming most of LoV players already know which is the best list to go for, otherwise we need to wait for them to adjust their lists (ie to buy, paint and assemble even more kits).
The hobby lag in this case will be even more impactful compared to any other codex release, since nobody has the models ready to go.

Long and short of it, there's 3 stances:

- need empirical data to gauge what and how much to alter, so some real world data was needed. The pre-nerf prevented this and as such we cannot say objectively where they stand until they have sufficient datasets to work out what has happened

- theory and hypothetical simulations showed the faction to be uncomfortably efficient and extrapolated conclusions are enough to ensure that the new was needed. Conversely using these same methods, the partial data sets and hypothetical trends seen currently are enough to draw a conclusion from

- take the 2nd half of option 1 and the first half of option 2. Nerf based on incomplete data then need detailed data to assess outcome. This one is still valid but feels the most dishonest in my opinion.

Dudeface wrote:
Long and short of it, there's 3 stances:

- need empirical data to gauge what and how much to alter, so some real world data was needed. The pre-nerf prevented this and as such we cannot say objectively where they stand until they have sufficient datasets to work out what has happened

- theory and hypothetical simulations showed the faction to be uncomfortably efficient and extrapolated conclusions are enough to ensure that the new was needed. Conversely using these same methods, the partial data sets and hypothetical trends seen currently are enough to draw a conclusion from

- take the 2nd half of option 1 and the first half of option 2. Nerf based on incomplete data then need detailed data to assess outcome. This one is still valid but feels the most dishonest in my opinion.

I think you are missing the option that theory and hypothetical simulations are superior to anything short of a massive amount of data. Is the conclusion that the nerf was too great or shouldn't have happened at all based on the 30% win rate alone or a combination of subjective evalutations of the army's performance by players and mathematical proof that the army is now undertuned even relative to other weak factions?

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Long and short of it, there's 3 stances:

- need empirical data to gauge what and how much to alter, so some real world data was needed. The pre-nerf prevented this and as such we cannot say objectively where they stand until they have sufficient datasets to work out what has happened

- theory and hypothetical simulations showed the faction to be uncomfortably efficient and extrapolated conclusions are enough to ensure that the new was needed. Conversely using these same methods, the partial data sets and hypothetical trends seen currently are enough to draw a conclusion from

- take the 2nd half of option 1 and the first half of option 2. Nerf based on incomplete data then need detailed data to assess outcome. This one is still valid but feels the most dishonest in my opinion.

I think you are missing the option that theory and hypothetical simulations are superior to anything short of a massive amount of data. Is the conclusion that the nerf was too great or shouldn't have happened at all based on the 30% win rate alone or a combination of subjective evalutations of the army's performance by players and mathematical proof that the army is now undertuned even relative to other weak factions?

To your first point it was a tldr summary but there is a break point on dataset, the emphasis here was hypothetical scenarios were acted upon with little to no real data. I aren't a statistician nor a mathematician by trade so I can't weigh in on how much data is relevant.

With the latter, oddly they got the nerf faq and there was much back patting and then I've not seen any revised theoretical or mathematical models, nor any feedback on them being "tested" by the community. I'd love to seesome to answer you with confidence, but it does feel the masses got their way and walked away without checking if it was right.

The original complaints were based off people having experience using proxies and TTS. I think there was a group where Votann went undefeated 85-90% of the time over 30 games in those playtests. These were not tournament data, but played by tournament people testing viability of the army.

When the armybox came out a few people were playing them in tournaments with a limited pool of models(and players) with a 50% winrate in the first week. I imagine that was also dependent on player skill so not reflective of final stats.

Ultimately the rest of the line and the actual good units haven't been released yet. I think we'll be seeing more accurate stats in the weeks following next Saturday as the entire line gets finally released.

The funny thing is if that Votann hadn't been nerfed you might probably be here(or someone else) be complaining that GW did not address the imbalance of the army. In other words, it's a situation where someone will always be unhappy.

TreeStewges wrote:It isn’t practical to test against every army though, someone did some basic math on that not too long ago and it would take 1-2
years to do it, however they did the math.

I think we can conclude they did the maths wrong. Even with the most generous dtermination of what constitutes an individual faction, 40k has 31 factions. That means LoV would need to be playtested against 30 other armies, over 30 games. Even if you had, say, 5 LoV archetypes you wanted to test that's still only 150 games total, which shouldn't be a problem for an organisation with immediate access to literally dozens of people who play the game. That's a pretty extreme example as well - you don't really need to playtest that extensively to get good results.

Karol wrote:

Aecus Decimus 807483 11449300 wrote:

Win rates aren't the only source of data. People did the math and it was clear that squats were way out of line in efficiency and were going to be a major problem. Playtesting games backed up this analysis. We don't need to waste a month on a completely broken meta just to prove that yes, water is in fact wet.

So were dark eldar or eldar, and people did the math too, yet somehow the books were not nerfed. In fact in case of DE, they were actualy buffed, after playtesters said the army is going to be very powerful. And both armies were left to be powerful for months, before any big changes happened. And by big changes I mean negative ones, because DE after they came out, almost instantly also got their cult of stryfe buff

It is always odd how with those armies, the players are told to wait, for the meta to adapt, to learn to play , for the armies not being popular so having low impact on the actual play field etc. Yet here we were with LoV, and they got killed off before ever getting their time to shine.

This has been explained to you repeatedly. It was an error to allow DE (and more recently Tyranids) to remain as powerful as they were (or are) for as long as they did. Realising that error and correcting it is the right thing to do. Continuing to make the same mistakes you've repeatedly made in the past is the height of stupidity. There's nothing we can do to change the mistakes of the past, but we don't need to continue to make them now.

As to the OP's original question, the answer is most likely no, they weren't prematurely nerfed. The vast majority of tournaments aren't allowing the unreleased models to be used yet, which restricts LoV to their basic troops, units of bikes and 2 characters. They have no psykers, no vehicles, no real close combat threat and none of their utility units are available yet. The full army is released next week so it may not be until the New Year before we see whether the army is sitting in the right place in terms of win percentage.

We do know the analysis of their efficiency prior to the nerfs indicated a real problem, and this was borne out by some playtesting using proxies. We'll likely never know how good they would have been in their unnerfed state versus the other top armies.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Long and short of it, there's 3 stances:

- need empirical data to gauge what and how much to alter, so some real world data was needed. The pre-nerf prevented this and as such we cannot say objectively where they stand until they have sufficient datasets to work out what has happened

- theory and hypothetical simulations showed the faction to be uncomfortably efficient and extrapolated conclusions are enough to ensure that the new was needed. Conversely using these same methods, the partial data sets and hypothetical trends seen currently are enough to draw a conclusion from

- take the 2nd half of option 1 and the first half of option 2. Nerf based on incomplete data then need detailed data to assess outcome. This one is still valid but feels the most dishonest in my opinion.

I think you are missing the option that theory and hypothetical simulations are superior to anything short of a massive amount of data. Is the conclusion that the nerf was too great or shouldn't have happened at all based on the 30% win rate alone or a combination of subjective evalutations of the army's performance by players and mathematical proof that the army is now undertuned even relative to other weak factions?

To your first point it was a tldr summary but there is a break point on dataset, the emphasis here was hypothetical scenarios were acted upon with little to no real data. I aren't a statistician nor a mathematician by trade so I can't weigh in on how much data is relevant.

With the latter, oddly they got the nerf faq and there was much back patting and then I've not seen any revised theoretical or mathematical models, nor any feedback on them being "tested" by the community. I'd love to seesome to answer you with confidence, but it does feel the masses got their way and walked away without checking if it was right.

That I think is where the people discussing it are waiting for the data before it comes to much more discussion.

And I sorta forget some of the details, but isn’t a lot of the math still similar. With most of the big difference to how it interacts with weapons, and points difference.

There is also two different balance discussions. I don’t remember any discussion at all over points balance, and almost entirely over the way the judgment tokens interact the game.
Which can throw balance off a lot when it’s %100+ Different based on the tokens for some units.

I'll jump up and down for points balance then.

Much like Tyranids and Harlequins and Tau and Custodes the Votaan have combined really good army rules with datasheets which are incredibly pushed for their points compared with everything else already in 40k.

Beserks should never have been 22. But at 30 I think they are just okay, not game breaking. Their lack of speed is an issue when transports have all been nerfed.
Hearthguard at 35 were solid. At 45? I think they are overcosted and possibly moving towards even being bad.
Bikers at 35 rather than 30? Its probably a fair price rather than a pushed one.
Hekaton at 230 with the boosted Magna Rail was obscene. At 300 with the nerfed to that gun? I'm not sure it's that hot. Its probably still better than a Repulsor Executioner at the same price - but we know that sucks.
Thunderkyn seemed borderline bad before they went up 5 points, and now I'll be amazed if GW sell any.

This isn't some sort of arcane divination. Take the most overpowered army in the game. Take 2 or 3 units off the table. Play out the game. Suddenly it won't do half as well.

Which I think is also the issue of "just playtest lol". Identifying that an overpowered faction is overpowered probably doesn't take that many games. GW's excuses for throwing these out are thin - its best explained by the fact they have deadlines, the books were all printed months ago and they don't really care and prefer to clean up afterwards.

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.

Thunderkyn seemed borderline bad before they went up 5 points, and now I'll be amazed if GW sell any.

What if 10th was a vehicle nerf, and suddenly units like hellblasters, dark reapers, thunderkin etc becoming the choice of long range support? Maybe GW is preping them to be, a thing, in 2-3 years time.


Clearly when books are writen months in advance, but your edition has a 3-5 months delay, some stuff which maybe was ment to be good for a short time and other stuff which was ment to be balanced by other stuff, just doesn't happen. DA or Custodes, who were hailed as edition killers, when they got their new books, look rather came comparing to even nerfed versions of lets say tyranids. Also explains why ad mecha can be totaly unnerfed.

My problem with GW is the fact that they use the win rates as smoke screen. Yeah, WS+IH on top of IF, CF or RG do give that 39% win rate, but IF on their own are sub 30% and that would look really bad on paper, and would be hard to explain why it isn't being changed. For AoS GW talks a lot about external and internal balance, now how much the new changes actualy reflect that I am going to ignore here for now, but at least they do mention it to be a thing.

In w40k GW knows that custodes with their win rates live and breath on FW units, FW dreadnoughts etc, but they do not adress that. They also don't adress stuff like GSC being really hard and unfun to play in general. Can someone with very good skills and a super specific army do okey in some events? Yes, but that does not extend to the store kid who though GSC look cool. But to be honest, GW explanations have been the same since 8th ed, and I have a feeling that they could have been the same in prior editions too.

Karol wrote:

Thunderkyn seemed borderline bad before they went up 5 points, and now I'll be amazed if GW sell any.

What if 10th was a vehicle nerf, and suddenly units like hellblasters, dark reapers, thunderkin etc becoming the choice of long range support? Maybe GW is preping them to be, a thing, in 2-3 years time.

99% of vehicles already suck. 9th IS the infantry edition.

All the top factions use multiple vehicles or monsters. I can't remember the last time we had a infantry army "problem" unless jetbike custodes count as infantry somehow. Even sob and necron, who use a lot of infantry and are good, aren't good because of infantry, but because they more or less ignore what the opponent is doing while scoring points.

I think most people would be glad to reverse a nerf if they have a substandard win rate after all the units have been out for a bit. Will you also admit you were wrong if they have a 45-55% win after full access to their units? Time will tell if the needs were too heavy handed but even if they needed a smaller point numb most people recognize that they did need changing

Karol wrote:
All the top factions use multiple vehicles or monsters. I can't remember the last time we had a infantry army "problem" unless jetbike custodes count as infantry somehow. Even sob and necron, who use a lot of infantry and are good, aren't good because of infantry, but because they more or less ignore what the opponent is doing while scoring points.

youre mixing vehicles and monsters together

make a list of the vehicles (non character ones i should add) that are making top lists, then compare that list to the rest of vehicle datasheet in the game.

Why does the distinction between monsters and vehicles matter? There are also some Bikes that are borderline vehicles and should be counted against the hypothesis that 9th is an infantry edition. I think calling it an Infantry edition makes the most sense if you were going to call it something but overall it looks like it's very varied. Here's a list of the vehicles that have gotten a top 4 in a GT in the last couple of weeks, the breadth definitely shows that it's just a points issue that any one vehicle doesn't show up.

Kill Rig, Battlewagon, Wazbom Blastajet, Bonebreaka, DeffKopta, Megatrakk Scrapjet, Rukkatrukk Squigbuggie, Kustom Boosta Blasta, Starweaver, Voidweaver, Armiger Helverin, Armiger Warglaive, Knight Moirax, Knight Errant, Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Decimator, Chaos Rhino, Sororitas Rhino, Castigator, Mortifier, Hammerhead, Falcon, Vyper, Support Weapon, Hemlock Wraithfighter, Voidraven Bomber, Burning Chariot, Contemptor-Achillus Dreadnought, Contemptor-Galatus Dreadnought, Storm Speeder Hammerstrike, Redemptor Dreadnought, Relic Contemptor Dreadnought.

We'd have people here saying "wait and see" if GW decided Cultists were now armed with Assault Cannons standard for no point increase.

 vict0988 wrote:
Why does the distinction between monsters and vehicles matter? There are also some Bikes that are borderline vehicles and should be counted against the hypothesis that 9th is an infantry edition. I think calling it an Infantry edition makes the most sense if you were going to call it something but overall it looks like it's very varied. Here's a list of the vehicles that have gotten a top 4 in a GT in the last couple of weeks, the breadth definitely shows that it's just a points issue that any one vehicle doesn't show up.

Kill Rig, Battlewagon, Wazbom Blastajet, Bonebreaka, DeffKopta, Megatrakk Scrapjet, Rukkatrukk Squigbuggie, Kustom Boosta Blasta, Starweaver, Voidweaver, Armiger Helverin, Armiger Warglaive, Knight Moirax, Knight Errant, Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Decimator, Chaos Rhino, Sororitas Rhino, Castigator, Mortifier, Hammerhead, Falcon, Vyper, Support Weapon, Hemlock Wraithfighter, Voidraven Bomber, Burning Chariot, Contemptor-Achillus Dreadnought, Contemptor-Galatus Dreadnought, Storm Speeder Hammerstrike, Redemptor Dreadnought, Relic Contemptor Dreadnought.

yeah now list the rest of the vehicles in 40k.

and yeah. its a points/durability issue.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We'd have people here saying "wait and see" if GW decided Cultists were now armed with Assault Cannons standard for no point increase.

I guess the argument is that if GW did give cultists assault cannons it would be straight forward to say "stop...reverse, delete".

Its harder however if GW go "no, we are committed, our solution is to raise the cost of everything in the codex by 20%."

Some tournament games (i.e. a few hundred) with pre-nerfed Votann would have at least given us more of an indication of where the strengths are (probably Beserks+Magna Rail Hekatons but you never know) and therefore what to change.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We'd have people here saying "wait and see" if GW decided Cultists were now armed with Assault Cannons standard for no point increase.

Sooo which wait and see is it? "Wait and see how much of a nerf they need" to the published codex or "wait and see if their win rate goes up from 30%"? One of those required an immediate beat down of GW publicly the other one apparently doesn't and you seem to think both are wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We'd have people here saying "wait and see" if GW decided Cultists were now armed with Assault Cannons standard for no point increase.

I guess the argument is that if GW did give cultists assault cannons it would be straight forward to say "stop...reverse, delete".

Its harder however if GW go "no, we are committed, our solution is to raise the cost of everything in the codex by 20%."

Some tournament games (i.e. a few hundred) with pre-nerfed Votann would have at least given us more of an indication of where the strengths are (probably Beserks+Magna Rail Hekatons but you never know) and therefore what to change.

This sums it up, they just took a shotgun to the points page and let rip without really any guidance or thought.

Some tournament games (i.e. a few hundred) with pre-nerfed Votann would have at least given us more of an indication of where the strengths are (probably Beserks+Magna Rail Hekatons but you never know) and therefore what to change.

I really hate how this turned out in past. I can sympathise with LoV players that want their new faction to not be gak, but they shouldn't get to ruin the game for 3 months. I know that GW had success with a previous round of nerfs pre-launch in AoS where the army dominated despite the pre-launch nerfs.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why does the distinction between monsters and vehicles matter? There are also some Bikes that are borderline vehicles and should be counted against the hypothesis that 9th is an infantry edition. I think calling it an Infantry edition makes the most sense if you were going to call it something but overall it looks like it's very varied. Here's a list of the vehicles that have gotten a top 4 in a GT in the last couple of weeks, the breadth definitely shows that it's just a points issue that any one vehicle doesn't show up.

Kill Rig, Battlewagon, Wazbom Blastajet, Bonebreaka, DeffKopta, Megatrakk Scrapjet, Rukkatrukk Squigbuggie, Kustom Boosta Blasta, Starweaver, Voidweaver, Armiger Helverin, Armiger Warglaive, Knight Moirax, Knight Errant, Knight Paladin, Knight Crusader, Decimator, Chaos Rhino, Sororitas Rhino, Castigator, Mortifier, Hammerhead, Falcon, Vyper, Support Weapon, Hemlock Wraithfighter, Voidraven Bomber, Burning Chariot, Contemptor-Achillus Dreadnought, Contemptor-Galatus Dreadnought, Storm Speeder Hammerstrike, Redemptor Dreadnought, Relic Contemptor Dreadnought.

yeah now list the rest of the vehicles in 40k.

and yeah. its a points/durability issue.

Do you want me to list all the infantry units compared to the ones that actually see use as well? You're never going to see every unit make it in a top 4 list in an edition, I think I showed that vehicles are fine in 9th. You might not like the lack of fully mechanised lists outside Knights, I don't miss it too much, it being an option but at best a mediocre one is pretty much exactly what I want.

 vict0988 wrote:
I really hate how this turned out in past. I can sympathise with LoV players that want their new faction to not be gak, but they shouldn't get to ruin the game for 3 months. I know that GW had success with a previous round of nerfs pre-launch in AoS where the army dominated despite the pre-launch nerfs.

It would be about 6 weeks at most, and outside of some people who would sprint to buy 3 Hekatons etc, I'm not sure it will be all that.

I guess we'll live with the myth that you couldn't move in every FLGS for people with 9 Voidweavers - but it just wasn't the case, and I don't think it would be so here.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We'd have people here saying "wait and see" if GW decided Cultists were now armed with Assault Cannons standard for no point increase.

Sooo which wait and see is it? "Wait and see how much of a nerf they need" to the published codex or "wait and see if their win rate goes up from 30%"? One of those required an immediate beat down of GW publicly the other one apparently doesn't and you seem to think both are wrong?

The original nerf was definitely the correct way to do it. If GW had waited for the entire line to be sold before nerfing clearly broken stuff people would have complained that they bought the army or x unit and GW stole their money and then nerfed the faction. Now people can buy whatever units they want knowing that if anything they will have their points reduced a bit. People would have been buying 3 land fortresses and crying non stop that they were nerfed.

Were Votann nerfed prematurely?

No.

Will some dakkanauts do their usual concern trolling?

Yes.