This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the 1/1 targeting system functionally caps WS+CB+BvI (abbreviated as WS going forward) at the health of their target. 10,000 damage, 1,000 damage, and 100 damage are all exactly the same value when the target has 90 health (though obviously the first two could be nuts in sustained combat depending on the breakdown. As such creating a distinction in damage between the elite chariots and the mid tier chariots requires increasing the collision attack profile to make use of any additional WS they have.

While I do agree with your assessment of the current situation, I do think that there's a need for patience. These changes -- as you surely know -- are not just QoL changes. They are very likely going to upend what we know about certain units/match-ups, while transferring power from certain units over to the newly adjusted units. This is going to upset many in the community. It just is. 

I've said repeatedly that, the nerfs -- whether through design or retroactively --  are the wishes of the community, not CA. CA will make what they think is awesome and or what they think that we want. What has been proven (PROVEN) is that people will insist on nerfs that render strong units (i.e. units that they themselves struggle against) into irrelevance. This is most evident when their favorite race(s) don't have that specific type of unit in its roster. 

So, I am for a more cautious approach. Let the new units (which they essentially are post 5.1) go through the "outrage phase" and then after that, expand to the remaining units affected by lack of collision attacks (Cold One Riders), the lack of weapon strength (WS), and or excessive splash attacks (Stegadons). Let them yell at the moon for a time, but let the results stand on their own. From that data we will have a much more compelling argument for the proliferation of these changes throughout the game. 

I wouldn't consider the above particularly pressing, now that the new system is in place it can be used as a balance tool I was mostly interested in exploring it's implications a bit. One thing I think I underestimated here was the fact that impact damage is pretty variable and in the right circumstances and with good luck elite chariots can hit similar damage numbers as my suggested changes. The floor is a bit lower and the ceiling is a bit higher but what I'm suggesting is adding a couple hundred more points of damage to elite chariots when hitting mid tier to elite infantry is not a crazy change relative to the overall rebalance of collision attacks.

I also think you're overestimating the push for nerfs, generally no one is looking for irrelevance it's just that MP players are often inaccurate in their assessment of the strength of a needed nerf. I do think the multiplayer community is a little jaded with buffs comparatively to nerfs because of stuff like the Tzeentch warshrine where a good buff is implemented poorly and causes issues due to a bug which makes playing against something unfun. Nerfs at worse removed something from the game which is far less egregious for players. This tends to result in big suggestions for nerfs and small suggestions for buffs when they happen (see Wild Riders who still need additional help, likely in the form a CB buff and a compensation nerf to the RoR). That said the response to the chariot buffs has been overall positive and pushback to further changes pretty limited. Totally fine letting it sit longer but this is a pretty good demonstration that cautious and calibrated buffs don't run the risk of breaking the game which is encouraging overall and helps align the MP and SP communities (and CA) who all agree on one thing; that units should be fun to use in whatever mode you're playing!

That said this is not something I think needs to be pushed into the next patch or a hotfix, CA's demonstrated they listen and weigh feedback to devise effective solutions (the chariot tweaks were informed by discussions on the forum but are a unit format as an example). CA has plenty of time to bring the game closer to balance and incremental progress is progress.

​

Spellbound1875#4610 wrote:

I wouldn't consider the above particularly pressing, now that the new system is in place it can be used as a balance tool I was mostly interested in exploring it's implications a bit. One thing I think I underestimated here was the fact that impact damage is pretty variable and in the right circumstances and with good luck elite chariots can hit similar damage numbers as my suggested changes. The floor is a bit lower and the ceiling is a bit higher but what I'm suggesting is adding a couple hundred more points of damage to elite chariots when hitting mid tier to elite infantry is not a crazy change relative to the overall rebalance of collision attacks.

I also think you're overestimating the push for nerfs, generally no one is looking for irrelevance it's just that MP players are often inaccurate in their assessment of the strength of a needed nerf. I do think the multiplayer community is a little jaded with buffs comparatively to nerfs because of stuff like the Tzeentch warshrine where a good buff is implemented poorly and causes issues due to a bug which makes playing against something unfun. Nerfs at worse removed something from the game which is far less egregious for players. This tends to result in big suggestions for nerfs and small suggestions for buffs when they happen (see Wild Riders who still need additional help, likely in the form a CB buff and a compensation nerf to the RoR). That said the response to the chariot buffs has been overall positive and pushback to further changes pretty limited. Totally fine letting it sit longer but this is a pretty good demonstration that cautious and calibrated buffs don't run the risk of breaking the game which is encouraging overall and helps align the MP and SP communities (and CA) who all agree on one thing; that units should be fun to use in whatever mode you're playing!

That said this is not something I think needs to be pushed into the next patch or a hotfix, CA's demonstrated they listen and weigh feedback to devise effective solutions (the chariot tweaks were informed by discussions on the forum but are a unit format as an example). CA has plenty of time to bring the game closer to balance and incremental progress is progress.

Chariots are absolutely mulching infantry after 5.1 (I love to see it)! I had to do a double-take after I took a downhill charge from a Slaanesh chariot. I thought that I was getting focus-fired until I remembered that they didn't have any ranged units. 

I suspect that more things have gone on under the hood with regard to changes to units that weren't mentioned in the 5.1 update. I'll have to take a deep look at some other units and archetypes that may have gotten some stealth changes. 

I never bother to differentiate between the intention of proposed nerfs and the nerfs themselves. The ending point is all that matters. If the nerfs that are so vehemently desired result in a unit becoming irrelevant, it doesn't matter if it was requested out of ignorance or malice; the unit is no longer able to perform as it was designed. There are multiple things that go into unit functionality. Changes to a targeted stat can cause a unit to cease to do its job. If that job is the one thing that it does well, then that unit becomes niche at best, redundant if lucky, or a net loss often enough.