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.

Asmodios wrote:

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.

OK, but now they're getting low win rates do we buff them before the rest of the range hits the table so people don't complain they got duped into buying a crap army launch set?

Or do we "wait and see" wait happens despite that being the same as hand waving assault cannon cultists.

There's some immense double standards here. Again I agreed that the army needed a once over and a nerf in the old threads, but I expected it to be nuanced and based on results and supportive data rather than a pitchfork mob.

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

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.

OK, but now they're getting low win rates do we buff them before the rest of the range hits the table so people don't complain they got duped into buying a crap army launch set?

Or do we "wait and see" wait happens despite that being the same as hand waving assault cannon cultists.

There's some immense double standards here. Again I agreed that the army needed a once over and a nerf in the old threads, but I expected it to be nuanced and based on results and supportive data rather than a pitchfork mob.

What's the double standard?

Option A: people buy army that's clearly broken/ units they bought get nerfed/ they are now mad because they spent money on bad units and or can't run them because now the list has gone up in points
Option B: people buy an army that is underpowered/ units they bought get buffed in the future because they are underperforming/ now people are getting even more out of the units they purchased then they expected

Option B is just the better way to do it ever single time. Or do you not remember the gnashing of teeth from people that bought max ork buggies before the change to a clearly broken unit?

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

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.

OK, but now they're getting low win rates do we buff them before the rest of the range hits the table so people don't complain they got duped into buying a crap army launch set?

Or do we "wait and see" wait happens despite that being the same as hand waving assault cannon cultists.

There's some immense double standards here. Again I agreed that the army needed a once over and a nerf in the old threads, but I expected it to be nuanced and based on results and supportive data rather than a pitchfork mob.

What's the double standard?

Option A: people buy army that's clearly broken/ units they bought get nerfed/ they are now mad because they spent money on bad units and or can't run them because now the list has gone up in points
Option B: people buy an army that is underpowered/ units they bought get buffed in the future because they are underperforming/ now people are getting even more out of the units they purchased then they expected

Option B is just the better way to do it ever single time. Or do you not remember the gnashing of teeth from people that bought max ork buggies before the change to a clearly broken unit?

The double standard is to knee jerk demand balance changes with next to no data. Then when the results trickle in the same people like wise old sages ask people to slowly wait and see what changes are needed.

Asenion wrote:Then why make a judgment at all? If it's untested, why not wait and see instead of deciding before it is even given a real test? That suggests bias.

I blame the Elf fans - they just can't have a Dwarf faction doing well [/possibly-not-entirely-serious]

Aecus Decimus wrote:We don't need to waste a month on a completely broken meta just to prove that yes, water is in fact wet.

Except that... it isn't.

To quote an article from the Medium from last year:

According to most scientific texts, wetness is a quality that can be measured. It is the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid. When we say that something is wet, we mean that liquid is sticking to its surface.

As water is a liquid, by definition it can't be wet. Ice, however, can be.

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

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.

OK, but now they're getting low win rates do we buff them before the rest of the range hits the table so people don't complain they got duped into buying a crap army launch set?

Or do we "wait and see" wait happens despite that being the same as hand waving assault cannon cultists.

There's some immense double standards here. Again I agreed that the army needed a once over and a nerf in the old threads, but I expected it to be nuanced and based on results and supportive data rather than a pitchfork mob.

What's the double standard?

Option A: people buy army that's clearly broken/ units they bought get nerfed/ they are now mad because they spent money on bad units and or can't run them because now the list has gone up in points
Option B: people buy an army that is underpowered/ units they bought get buffed in the future because they are underperforming/ now people are getting even more out of the units they purchased then they expected

Option B is just the better way to do it ever single time. Or do you not remember the gnashing of teeth from people that bought max ork buggies before the change to a clearly broken unit?

The double standard is to knee jerk demand balance changes with next to no data. Then when the results trickle in the same people like wise old sages ask people to slowly wait and see what changes are needed.

You are falling for your own double standard though. There is no data with all the units out and in wide circulation so you saying the nerfs being kneejerk in and of itself is a kneejerk reaction. Everyone and GW could do some simple math and see the initial release of LOV was far out of whack. I haven't seen a single top-level player or previous playtester say they were fine. Now there has been debate about whether or not the nerf was a bit to bit. I do notice that you ignored my entire part about people buying units that then get nerfed. It's just clear that GW took the proper route so now people can safely buy these units knowing they will either A. settle into a 45-55 win rate or B. get buffed. Both of those are preferable to 2-3 months of LVO crushing gak than those units being nerfed right as the casual crowd finished painting them.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

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.

How did I make that point in any way? I said the win rate of Votann being low at launch is anomalous given that most other factions had a higher then normal win rate at launch. It's not a smoking gun by itself but it's a strong piece of evidence.

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

Please don't make outdated points. The rest of the Codex has been released for over a week now. You are just spreading misinformation.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
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.

Those parts of the codex were banned because the models were not officially released by GW yet - it had nothing to do with balance. You said this in your own words -from literally earlier today:

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.[

Straight from the horses mouth.

I mean it's hard to even know what to say at this point since you seem to be contradicting yourself left and right and saying outright falsehoods like "the full codex isn't out" when it's been out for over a week.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

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.

LOL. Well I seem to be reading your points more carefully then even yourself seeing as I'm finding direct contradictions in less then a 24 hour period.

And no I don't disagree. There are too many variables. As someone else whose judgment I place higher then yours noted there are 31 factions. Each faction has dozens of models. Each model has dozens of stats. Then there are factors like terrain, strategems, mission objectives and likely other variables we cannot take into account.

This is why play-testing is critical.

Arguing that we don't need play-testing or only a tiny amount is just an argument to encourage GW to be cheap and lazy.

Likewise, as some one noted saying only a certain amount of data counts - and then we stop counting the data until you want to count the data again is a double standard.

If a month was enough time to accumulate data, then 2-3 months is enough time also. Saying "Well 2-3 months isn't enough - we need six months! Maybe even two years because of 'math' ." Is a clear double standard.

The math works both ways, the 30 percent win rate is math too and it's better because we are not just cherry-picking data which can bias the equations but looking at the overall numbers in real, competitive, officially documented games where people are seriously competing. Unless you are proposing some kind of conspiracy theory whereby the mods or players of these tournaments are rigging these numbers to intentionally make the Votann look weak ( honestly don't see how you can dispute this, though given how misinformed you seem regarding certain aspects of the issue and your general lack of efficiency (coupled with your nearly desperate, emotional tone which includes all caps and even curse words at certain points) I find it increasingly difficult to regard your analysis as objective or rational in general.

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.

It was blatantly obvious reading the codex when they can make 6s the value in a bunch of instances LOL.

I don't need to play games with Votaan to determine they're stupid in the same way I don't need to play games with Cultists w/ free Assault Cannons to determine they're stupid. Y'all give GW way too much credit as "rules writers".

tneva82 wrote:

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.

OMG SO MANY CAPS IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!!

In any rate Table Top Titans just played a game with the new models, as have many other youtubers since they are now at full release for much of the community, and guess what?

THEY ARE STILL LOSING PRETT BAD!!!

35 to 15!!!!!

ALL WITH THE FULL RANGE OF MODELS!!!!

So yeah I mean losing 2 to 1 with the full model range hardly supports your point - how is that for math?

tneva82 wrote:

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.

The nerf to JTs was minor and by and large only effected one weapon. If you read the article which apparently showed omniscient, super-human levels of "math" that us mere mortals must never question - it said the JT system was hopelessly broken, saying it increased weapon damage by 600 percent among other absurd claims.

All the nerf did was remove 6s from being automatic with JT hits. That's all. And it only effects a handful of Votann weapons. That alone should not make the win rate so abysmal compared to what we should expect - especially for a new faction unless the initial analysis was incorrect which I suspect is the case seeing as the author himself admitted to ignoring a multitude of variables and clearly had some kind of bias seeing as he was cursing with exclamation marks during his "mathematical analysis".

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

It shouldn't have been published to begin with

Tyel wrote:
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.

I'm sorry but that looks entirely subjective, which is why play testing is critical. Even the most well intended person is subject to biases - such as confirmation bias. Even in science this is a problem which is why a myriad of checks like the need to be able to replicate results and the peer review process are critical.

Simply saying the points "feel" off is really questionable. Tp me a lot of Space Marine points feel off. A lot of Sister's of Battle points feel off, a lot of Chaos Demon points and strategems seem to be hopelessly unbalanced, but I recognize that could just be my biases and we don't really know until the factions are play tested in multiple games where players are purposely trying to optimize and counter each other in a serious manner.

To me the 30 percent win rate is a big red flag. More data is always welcome, and either it will confirm or disprove that assertion. I can't speculate on what the data will be, but I can note the same people saying "we need more data before we can make any sort of judgment" now were the same that called for a nerf before the faction was even released to the general public.

Again this shows clear double standards.

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Well that's part of the game. There is no way to make a game like Warhammer 100 percent balanced, especially for every single unit. That is why meta-data has to be the standard.

Trying to isolate and alter powerful units 1 by 1 is never going to work - there are just too many units and too many factions.

The best we can do is look at the big picture and make an analysis accordingly. If some units seem to under-perform : improve them a little. If some overperform - increase points costs slightly.

But just making sweeping changes before a faction is even released seems extremely counter-productive even if the faction is overpowered. That's like seeing an image a little blurry in your binoculars or under a microscope and instead of sliding a little up or down you just rotate the dial like a madman. You'll never be able to truly balance a faction that way because your change is creating too many variables to accurately zoom into a clear focus.

tneva82 wrote:
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.

Actually it does. Starcraft, RA3, many games have been out and it is still hard to identify which factions are over-powered at times. I think Terrans are OP in SC2 and Allies in RA3 for example, but other players will argue until they are blue in the face that everything is perfectly in order,

And to this day SC2 has been getting patches, The game is roughly 12 years old now and there are only 3 factons. It isn't nearly as complex as Warhammer 40k.

tneva82 wrote:
But the issue is that tuning a book down is a harder process. For example, do you change the datasheets, do you change the army rules or do you up the points so they play with less stuff? Almost every 2022 codex seems to have experienced a combo of all three. And how many games are you then going to play with each new version of these rules? Very quickly you can be into playing hundreds of games - and that faction has to get sent out the door so you can repeat the process with the next one.

That's why the steps to alter any faction should be incremental and only after a good amount of play testing. Making radical changes really doesn't help here, let alone imposing radical changes before a faction is even released or put into a single tournament.

Again, my argument isn't even centered around whether the Votann are over-powered or under-powered - I doubt any faction will be perfectly balanced anyways. Let alone the game as a whole.

My argument was that the call for GW to make radical changes was premature and the extremely low win rates seems to confirm my suspicions.

Asenion wrote:
How did I make that point in any way? I said the win rate of Votann being low at launch is anomalous given that most other factions had a higher then normal win rate at launch. It's not a smoking gun by itself but it's a strong piece of evidence.

You are making this point by arguing that the crippled partial squat codex (Eldar) has a 0% win rate therefore the real squat codex (Orks) needs to be buffed.

And no, it isn't anomalous at all. Tau had a very high win rate at launch and required multiple nerfs but guess what: their entire codex was legal at launch. They didn't have to spend a month or two playing with a crippled partial codex. You can't look at a codex that has been deliberately crippled in most events and conclude that the resulting low win rate will remain constant once the banned material is unbanned and the full codex is available.

Please don't make outdated points. The rest of the Codex has been released for over a week now. You are just spreading misinformation.

Irony, thy name is Asenion.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/lov-hekaton-land-fortress-2022

Pre-order product that will be delivered from 11/5/2022.

The full model line is not out yet and the full codex is not legal in most events.

Those parts of the codex were banned because the models were not officially released by GW yet - it had nothing to do with balance.

Please stop making straw man arguments. I said very clearly that the ban was because of unreleased models.

And no I don't disagree. There are too many variables. As someone else whose judgment I place higher then yours noted there are 31 factions. Each faction has dozens of models. Each model has dozens of stats. Then there are factors like terrain, strategems, mission objectives and likely other variables we cannot take into account.

There are 31 factions. Each faction has dozens of models. Each model has dozens of stats. Then there are factors like terrain, strategems, mission objectives and likely other variables we cannot take into account. And 10 point Baneblades would still be utterly broken, with only a token amount of playtesting required to confirm that analysis because of how obviously out of line they would be.

Wow, we just had someone say Starcraft was less complex than 40k

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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

It shouldn't have been published to begin with

But you're OK with "wait and see" now?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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

It shouldn't have been published to begin with

I agree. They didn't seem to have conducted any play-testing at all, and to me intuitively the prices seemed wonky and the faction mechanics over powered. The key word is seemed btw, as many times this happens in strategy games until the opponents learn to counter the faction and then the mechanic seems under powered. In the new Age of Empires this has happened on and off with Knight rushes for the French and Sprigalds along with Longbow rushes, etc. It's why I prefer at least a good month or two to let people get used to the list and see what counters are possible, and then I think fine tuning should be implemented - ideally in increments. This should start with point changes - as that is the most measurable of changes. Only if point changes seem to have no effect or the points increase becomes so massive that the unit cannot be fielded at all should the developers then deal with the game/unit mechanics, as that change is more qualitative and prone to unpredictable outcomes.

I do like to reserve judgment though for actual play tests, and even then sweeping or radical changes to an entire faction are counter-productive. You're just introducing too many new variables at once and not really fine-tuning the army like a responsible game developer should.

Likewise some of the nerfs didn't even make any sense. Making it so JT's prevent 6s for Magna-rails, etc, is almost a reason not to take them in a way. It creates cross purposes - like making it so Necron regeneration has a chance to kill models in a unit or Disgustingly Resilient can now inflict mortal wounds on one's own model or reduces ap, etc. It didn't seem well thought out at all.

The fact that they did this AND increased point costs substantially AND then further nerfed various relics, etc, to me seemed less like they were acting like responsible game developers and more like they were just caving into a community's emotional reactions.

The fact that various irate members of the community completely spazzed before any real testing and immediately gave GW several pats on the back for these insanely lazy nerfs which seemed based more on appeasement then actual balance didn't help.

And so now where are we? If Votann are under-powered, what does GW do then? Do they swing the pendulum back? How long is that going to take if they do so incrementally now (which they should, though a 30 percent win rate is a ways to go). Do they make more radical changes, make Votann overpowered (again?) and then after more complaints implement more radical, last-dicth-effort super-nerfs?

The problem with this is it can take years for the faction to recover. Take how they handled Guard, AdMech, etc. Initially those were considered OP - the community flipped - GW caved into the hysterical crowd (as most authorities will do seeing as holding one's ground and exercising sober leadership in the face of a screeching mob requires resolve, courage and a strong sense of integrity) and now years later those factions still have an extremely low win rate.

You got a combination of bad leaders, and bad followers. Combine this with a vocal, extremist minority and a corrupt/spineless leadership and you have the ingredients for a disaster in general - which is more common in strategy games then one might initially think.

Asmodios wrote:

You are falling for your own double standard though. There is no data with all the units out and in wide circulation so you saying the nerfs being kneejerk in and of itself is a kneejerk reaction. Everyone and GW could do some simple math and see the initial release of LOV was far out of whack. I haven't seen a single top-level player or previous playtester say they were fine. Now there has been debate about whether or not the nerf was a bit to bit. I do notice that you ignored my entire part about people buying units that then get nerfed. It's just clear that GW took the proper route so now people can safely buy these units knowing they will either A. settle into a 45-55 win rate or B. get buffed. Both of those are preferable to 2-3 months of LVO crushing gak than those units being nerfed right as the casual crowd finished painting them.

First of all I aren't showing double standards, you're proving my point. The first change was pre-emptively fired because "it was obvious" with no empirical data to back it up. It was a knee jerk, it was an instant extreme reaction to an unproven product. We still have an unproven product because the whole range isn't out but all signs point to them being below average. Instead of making a corrective change with limited empirical data, those same people are now employing "wait and see if its ok".

My personal stance is they will land at an ok % but they'll be an unhealthy average due to it being about skews.

Regards people's purchases I don't really care either way. It's a dead certainty in this game that point change, profiles get rewritten etc. If someone was buying 3 land fortresses to win easy games, more fool them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asenion wrote:
snip.

You got a combination of bad leaders, and bad followers. Combine this with a vocal, extremist minority and a corrupt/spineless leadership and you have the ingredients for a disaster in general - which is more common in strategy games then one might initially think.

Well written, wasn't sure where you were going with that but very comprehensive response.

Asenion wrote:
(which they should, though a 30 percent loss rate is a ways to go).

SQUATS DO NOT HAVE A 30% WIN RATE

Stop repeating this incredibly dishonest argument. You've been told multiple times that the 30% win rate data is not valid because it isn't using the full codex, you have no excuse for continuing to make that claim.

Take how they handled Guard, AdMech, etc.

Yes, talk about how they handled guard. Early in index-era 8th they nerfed a single problematic and anti-fun list (conscripts + commissars) and when they printed the codex they didn't restore that anti-fun list. The rest of the army was untouched, there was no general nerf. The reason guard have been underperforming is not that GW over-nerfed conscripts, it's that they have the oldest codex and are on the wrong end of years of blatant power creep from the rest of the game. If GW had reversed the conscript nerf they'd still be in the exact same position right now.

(And remember, 8th's morale system was completely different and the nerf that applied in 8th is not even relevant in 9th.)

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
(which they should, though a 30 percent loss rate is a ways to go).

SQUATS DO NOT HAVE A 30% WIN RATE

Stop repeating this incredibly dishonest argument. You've been told multiple times that the 30% win rate data is not valid because it isn't using the full codex, you have no excuse for continuing to make that claim.

What was their win rate when they got nerfed? Pretty sure it was n/a and wasn't using any codex.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
(which they should, though a 30 percent loss rate is a ways to go).

SQUATS DO NOT HAVE A 30% WIN RATE

Stop repeating this incredibly dishonest argument. You've been told multiple times that the 30% win rate data is not valid because it isn't using the full codex, you have no excuse for continuing to make that claim.

Oh come on, they do have a 30 percent win rate, you're just saying it doesn't count because the full codex isn't out for the general public yet.

And you are ignoring the point of how other factions didn't have their full models released right away and still upon initial launch had over-performing win rates.

To me this isn't by itself a problem, but to go from over-performing for a new faction to a 30 percent win rate suggests that the calls for such radical nerfs were way off. This means GW might have a long ways to go in order to make the faction viable again, and the fact is GW hasn't had the best record with regards to resolving these issues in a timely fashion, especially if the models are not selling well and there are some indicators that Votann sales have dipped heavily as a result of these crazy nerfs.

Likewise Titans did a play test of the Votann with their full Codex against a Tournament strong Ork list and they lost really, really bad. It was something like 35 points to 15 points. I mean, say Votann were TWICE as strong, that would mean 35 points to 30 - so at double their current strength they still would have lost.

To me it seems like a blunder by certain extreme members of the community and some inept tendencies by GW and the worst part is both those groups seem to be reinforcing reach other's bad tendencies.

Asenion wrote:
Oh come on, they do have a 30 percent win rate, you're just saying it doesn't count because the full codex isn't out for the general public yet.

Shocking, a faction that has half its codex banned in competitive play is struggling in competitive play. You can't ban key units from an army and then use that as an argument that the full post-ban army should get buffed.

And you are ignoring the point of how other factions didn't have their full models released right away and still upon initial launch had over-performing win rates.

What models from other factions were banned on launch? Tau didn't have launch bans, clown elves didn't have launch bans, gold marines didn't have launch bans, IIRC tyranids didn't have launch bans.

To me this isn't by itself a problem, but to go from over-performing for a new faction to a 30 percent win rate suggests that the calls for such radical nerfs were way off.

It only suggests that if you are making a dishonest attempt at getting your pet faction buffed. If you look at the situation objectively you'll see that one of the biggest nerfs, to the unit that generated the most outrage, was to a unit that is currently banned in competitive play. How can competitive play data tell you anything about that nerf when the unit isn't included in the data?

I guess we'll find out in two weeks when we are no longer dealing with "private tournaments" but will see things all over the world.

I have no real difficulty with believing the faction would have been overpowered, but the JT change and hard points hikes may now mean they are quite poor.

The problem with "private tournaments" though is its hard to know the dynamics. What for instance does "Squat good stuff" look like? What's the optimal approach?

I guess I could have a stab if I got the codex and embraced pure theory.

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

You are falling for your own double standard though. There is no data with all the units out and in wide circulation so you saying the nerfs being kneejerk in and of itself is a kneejerk reaction. Everyone and GW could do some simple math and see the initial release of LOV was far out of whack. I haven't seen a single top-level player or previous playtester say they were fine. Now there has been debate about whether or not the nerf was a bit to bit. I do notice that you ignored my entire part about people buying units that then get nerfed. It's just clear that GW took the proper route so now people can safely buy these units knowing they will either A. settle into a 45-55 win rate or B. get buffed. Both of those are preferable to 2-3 months of LVO crushing gak than those units being nerfed right as the casual crowd finished painting them.

First of all I aren't showing double standards, you're proving my point. The first change was pre-emptively fired because "it was obvious" with no empirical data to back it up. It was a knee jerk, it was an instant extreme reaction to an unproven product. We still have an unproven product because the whole range isn't out but all signs point to them being below average. Instead of making a corrective change with limited empirical data, those same people are now employing "wait and see if its ok".

My personal stance is they will land at an ok % but they'll be an unhealthy average due to it being about skews.

I think I see where you are confused now. You are taking tournament games played as the only type of empirical data. By that logic, we should just release every army's data slate at 1 ppm for everything in the codex. Because there is no empirical data to back up that would be broken because no games have been played..... But of course, basic math hammer can be used to gather data without ever playing a game to tell you if something is super out of line. That's why LOV had such a unique reaction when released the basic math for the army didn't add up and thus they got nerfed.

Once again you completely ignored my part about the release schedule. Do you think it would have been better for GW to release units that would have clearly been nerfed after a short period? Is it better for GW to wait to sell the stock before fixing something that will obviously be nerfed after a short period?

James workshop hit the nail on the head about including a first-place trophy in the box because its clear people like you are simply salty you didn't get to enjoy an 85% win rate for 2 months

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Asenion wrote:
Oh come on, they do have a 30 percent win rate, you're just saying it doesn't count because the full codex isn't out for the general public yet.

Shocking, a faction that has half its codex banned in competitive play is struggling in competitive play. You can't ban key units from an army and then use that as an argument that the full post-ban army should get buffed.

And you are ignoring the point of how other factions didn't have their full models released right away and still upon initial launch had over-performing win rates.

What models from other factions were banned on launch? Tau didn't have launch bans, clown elves didn't have launch bans, gold marines didn't have launch bans, IIRC tyranids didn't have launch bans.

To me this isn't by itself a problem, but to go from over-performing for a new faction to a 30 percent win rate suggests that the calls for such radical nerfs were way off.

It only suggests that if you are making a dishonest attempt at getting your pet faction buffed. If you look at the situation objectively you'll see that one of the biggest nerfs, to the unit that generated the most outrage, was to a unit that is currently banned in competitive play. How can competitive play data tell you anything about that nerf when the unit isn't included in the data?

Again you don't seem to be understanding my point. My point isn't necessarily that Votann are OP or UP, but that the way the faction was released was bad (there was clearly no play testing) and the way a vocal minority overreacted ended up compounding the problem with things like organized boycotts before any tournaments or extensive play testing had been conducted,

GW responding by making a boat load of radical changes in every possible direction, sometimes to the point where the factions buffs become self-inflicting wounds just makes the hole deeper. And having this same angry mob then pat GW on the back for reacting in this way then sets a bad precedent.

My issue is with the process. And we've been here before.

GW makes an uber faction to sell more models. Some vocal minorities prone to irrational tendencies totally lose their minds and make irrational demands - GW goes all out appeasing these demands without any real self-reflection and we end up with problems that take years to fix.

This shows a lack of prioritization for GW, as they should focus on balancing the game as a whole (reducing the win rate of over-performers such as Sisters and 'Nids while buffing under-performers).

And furthermore it wastes a lot of time and resources. All these resources spent fixing all these factions over years can be going into other areas - such as adding new content, new lore or making the overly-insane prices cheaper. All these mistakes ultimately land on the consumer (as I doubt the share-owners or executives will nerf their own salaries or profits for their mistakes) and so we effectively are paying for these mistakes with models that cost hundreds of dollars.

Like I said, every mistake like this has an opportunity cost. Having to fix Guard, and AdMech AND Votann and Tau Drone Spam and 'Nids being OP and Sisters being OP and all the other crap takes resources away from projects that can be used to add new features to improve the game or reduce costs so as to make the game more accessible.

Likely this is why they might not even be play-testing sufficiently now or allowing games to be played in their stores - they are getting over-extended and now they are going to have to make painful cuts. Problems like that can be self-reinforcing over time. And even worse instead of focusing GW just seems invested in trying magical solutions - like new side games or factions to generate more income - which just creates more problems instead of addressing these fundamental issues,

Again the whole thing was handled bad overall - the initial launch, the community reaction, GW's response and the community's sheepish acceptance of the poorly conceived solution. What is missing is any sort of self-reflection, accountability or a willingness to learn from any parties whatsoever.

Asenion wrote:
My point isn't necessarily that Votann are OP or UP

But over and over again you keep citing that 30% win rate and claiming that squats are weak and over-nerfed. Your dishonesty here is impressive.

(there was clearly no play testing)

How do you know there was no playtesting? If you're claiming the nerfs were unjustified then where is your evidence for a lack of playtesting? You seem to have a weird double standard here, where the squat codex is just fine when you want to argue against the nerf but also so obviously overpowered that GW didn't do sufficient playtesting.

GW makes an uber faction to sell more models. Some vocal minorities prone to irrational tendencies totally lose their minds and make irrational demands - GW goes all out appeasing these demands without any real self-reflection and we end up with problems that take years to fix.

{citation needed}

Tau are doing fine. Eldar are doing fine. Both factions received major (and completely justified) nerfs and the sky is not falling. There is no problem that takes "years" to fix.

Asmodios wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

You are falling for your own double standard though. There is no data with all the units out and in wide circulation so you saying the nerfs being kneejerk in and of itself is a kneejerk reaction. Everyone and GW could do some simple math and see the initial release of LOV was far out of whack. I haven't seen a single top-level player or previous playtester say they were fine. Now there has been debate about whether or not the nerf was a bit to bit. I do notice that you ignored my entire part about people buying units that then get nerfed. It's just clear that GW took the proper route so now people can safely buy these units knowing they will either A. settle into a 45-55 win rate or B. get buffed. Both of those are preferable to 2-3 months of LVO crushing gak than those units being nerfed right as the casual crowd finished painting them.

First of all I aren't showing double standards, you're proving my point. The first change was pre-emptively fired because "it was obvious" with no empirical data to back it up. It was a knee jerk, it was an instant extreme reaction to an unproven product. We still have an unproven product because the whole range isn't out but all signs point to them being below average. Instead of making a corrective change with limited empirical data, those same people are now employing "wait and see if its ok".

My personal stance is they will land at an ok % but they'll be an unhealthy average due to it being about skews.

I think I see where you are confused now. You are taking tournament games played as the only type of empirical data. By that logic, we should just release every army's data slate at 1 ppm for everything in the codex. Because there is no empirical data to back up that would be broken because no games have been played..... But of course, basic math hammer can be used to gather data without ever playing a game to tell you if something is super out of line. That's why LOV had such a unique reaction when released the basic math for the army didn't add up and thus they got nerfed.

Once again you completely ignored my part about the release schedule. Do you think it would have been better for GW to release units that would have clearly been nerfed after a short period? Is it better for GW to wait to sell the stock before fixing something that will obviously be nerfed after a short period?

James workshop hit the nail on the head about including a first-place trophy in the box because its clear people like you are simply salty you didn't get to enjoy an 85% win rate for 2 months

My word you just cut off the part that responds to your precious sales query:

Regards people's purchases I don't really care either way. It's a dead certainty in this game that point change, profiles get rewritten etc. If someone was buying 3 land fortresses to win easy games, more fool them.

And yes I am talking about tournament results, because oddly I can look at a codex and demand it gets altered too, anyone can. That's the point, there was no data to direct any changes.

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.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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

It shouldn't have been published to begin with

But you're OK with "wait and see" now?

I've never been okay with wait and see, and I constantly bash that point. Did you not even read my point about Cultists with free Assault Cannons?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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

It shouldn't have been published to begin with

But you're OK with "wait and see" now?

I've never been okay with wait and see, and I constantly bash that point. Did you not even read my point about Cultists with free Assault Cannons?

I did, but somewhere there needs to be some wait and see, it just seems like people don't really care bow they got their initial rampage out the way. Or more likely a different GW misstep has people upset.

Dudeface wrote:
I did, but somewhere there needs to be some wait and see, it just seems like people don't really care bow they got their initial rampage out the way. Or more likely a different GW misstep has people upset.

How long do we need to wait and see if the new guard codex has 10 point Baneblades? A month? Two months? Or can we go straight to the obvious conclusion and tell GW "fix this you morons"?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I did, but somewhere there needs to be some wait and see, it just seems like people don't really care bow they got their initial rampage out the way. Or more likely a different GW misstep has people upset.

How long do we need to wait and see if the new guard codex has 10 point Baneblades? A month? Two months? Or can we go straight to the obvious conclusion and tell GW "fix this you morons"?

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

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

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

Aecus Decimus wrote:

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

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

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