ah my bad he is currently 9-1 with orks. My point was that orks can be played effectively/competitively. Also if I remember correctly an ork list placed 2nd at a decently sized tournament in the UK.
I just posted that. I think your referring to the Caledonian Revolution where the ork took second place. There is more information about it on their facebook page where thye break down who made it into each round ect. Coincidentally Tau took a major hit in attendance and the few who did show up with the cheesiest of 8th list were regularly getting tabled turn 3.
I hate to be so down on the Tau since I love the faction and lore, but I want them to be balanced like everyone else is fairly. Some overpowered things like space marine flyer spam need to be toned down for sure.
It feels like I've been beating this drum for three years to no effect. Now instead of asking for everything to be balanced equally and Tau be brought down to normal levels I'm asking them to be brought up.
ross-128 wrote: Well from the looks of things, Space Marine players (and to some extent, GW themselves) seem to have some expectations for Space Marines that are... difficult to meet.
1: Named chapters are generally expected to be defined by advantages over generic Marines, disadvantages to offset these differences are... discouraged.
2: Space Marine players want generic Space Marines to be on the strong end of the power curve. Which would in some ways be understandable, everyone wants to be above average (the mathematics of that aside) except for how it conflicts with #1.
3: Space Marines fight other Space Marines more often than other factions, due to their large share of the player base. While you might expect this to push them toward a 50/50 win rate, this falls apart when you consider #1 and #2: generic Space Marines lose to named Space Marines.
4: Space Marine players are most attached to old, long-standing model lines that form the core identity of the faction. Tactical marines, devastators, terminators, Rhinos, Predators. This would be fine, except...
5: GW wants to constantly crank out new Marine models, and wants people to buy all the latest shiny stuff. So Space Marine power creep tends to be more concentrated in their newest models that the players are reluctant to field. Other factions power creep too, but their power creep is better distributed between old and new models, because new model releases for other factions are relatively rare.
#1-3 together means that generic Space Marine win rates will be suppressed no matter how good Space Marines as a whole become, because they will mostly be fighting either other generic Space Marines, or named Space Marines that are better than them.
#4-5 means that a tournament player willing to go for the newest models, and put victory before faction identity can reliably win tournaments by chasing the latest releases. Meanwhile, the more typical Marine player who is trying to field the archetypical Marine force is left behind as GW introduces new models instead of reworking old models. This results in the Space Marines being a strong faction... unless you play them the way most people expect Space Marines to play.
In a way, they're victims of their own posterboy status.
This post outlines in perfect & succinct detail why I hate GW.
CSM and Crons vs Admech and Sisters - Sisters/Admech took it
CSM vs Sisters - Sisters took it
CSM vs Guard - Guard ate my breakfast, my lunch and quite possibly my dinner with their stupid leman russ. (No mobility and jerk parked it in the back corner and threw massive battle cannon shots at me)
So, my CSMs(technically, all Thousand Sons.) Lost three to AM/Sisters and Admech.
Eldar vs Orks - 1 Eldar win, 0 losses
Eldar vs Tyranids - 1 Eldar win, 0 losses
Eldar vs daemons - 1 Eldar win, 0 losses, 1 draw
Orks vs daemons - 1 Ork win, 0 losses
The draw was actually the closest game I have ever played, at the end of the game we both had the same number of kill points and neither of us had any units on the table. (He killed my last tank in combat with his last squad and I blew up in his face.)
Also there was a 1v2 game of eldar vs Dark Eldar and Tyranids not sure if you want to count that one but eldar lost anyway.
3 games in this weekend, all 2000 points, all tryhard lists:
Dark Eldar vs Tyranids - Nids win
Dark Eladr vs Space Wolves - DE win
Dark Eldar vs Black Templars - DE win
We had a free for all between Ynarri, Eldar, SM and Orks.
Tempted to say Eldar won (either). My Orks got tabled.
Granted I made some huge tactical blunders but I still feel the -1 to hit modifiers harder than the other three armies on the table, not to mention there seem to be a lack of rerolls without using CP that I feel like I'm playing the NPC army again.
Local 8 person 1500pts 3 round Maelstrom tournament Event points (3,2,1) for win/tie/lose, maelstrom points as tie breakers
What was there:
Guilliman + SM tanks
Renegade + Bloodthirster + Chaos SM Khorne World Eater Chaos (Berzerkers in Rhinos, CSM Prince, flesh hounds, bloodletters, Herald on Juggernaught) (this was my list)
Craftworld Eldar (Fire Prism/Wave serpent, small bike squads, farseer on Bike)
Necron (Tesla Spam Immortals, Wraiths, Catacomb tomb Lord)
3 Knights
White Scars (Khan + Bikers + 4 Rhinos with Grav mix)
Death Guard (Dark Imperium + a Helbrute)
Some notes from the day:
Guilliman + SM tanks dropped middle of round two. He won game one, but My Khorne World Eater Chaos on turn two had all his heavy hitters locked in combat and Guilliman about to be swarmed by two big units of Berzerkers. He was not looking very well and left.
3 Knight dropped before Round two. Due to poor maelstrom card missions, he gained no Maelstrom point in game one and could not table his opponent for at least an Event score win, he decided to not continue to play that day.
Renegade + Bloodthirster + Chaos SM got 1st.
My Khorne World Eater Chaos and the Craftworld Eldar tied for second/third.
Just played in a local ITC tournament.
1st place: Tyranids (Genestealer Spam)
2nd place: Chaos Space Marines (Nurgle)
3rd place: Militarum Tempestus (IG Allies)
Played tau vs Dark Eldar. Tau victory although I will put a good portion of that to seizing first turn and killing 2 raiders and about half a 20 kabalite squad on my first turn.
Even two turn one assaults were not enough to secure victory. I believe my opponent did enjoy going first without having to seize the initiative though.
Team game Astra and necrons versus blood angels and grey knights. Necrons/guard victory
Tyranids versus eldar, Tyranids win
Tyranids versus sisters of battle, draw.
SM vs CSM - SM win
SM vs SOB - SM win
CSM vs SOB - SOB win
The first game the SM player is someone who has been jumping around to a few different armies, the other two are our group's real Space Marine player. I'm the CSM player in all instances (technically Thousand Sons).
After the latest string of crushing victories our SM player has sworn off Azrael's Parking Lot as being too good and not fun for anyone involved. She's an Iron Hands player who has just been playing with Azrael due to the lack of any real rules for her chapter, so she'll be very excited for the return of chapter tactics I'm sure.
SM vs CSM - SM win
SM vs SOB - SM win
CSM vs SOB - SOB win
The first game the SM player is someone who has been jumping around to a few different armies, the other two are our group's real Space Marine player. I'm the CSM player in all instances (technically Thousand Sons).
After the latest string of crushing victories our SM player has sworn off Azrael's Parking Lot as being too good and not fun for anyone involved. She's an Iron Hands player who has just been playing with Azrael due to the lack of any real rules for her chapter, so she'll be very excited for the return of chapter tactics I'm sure.
I'm confused. Those 2 wins were with an Azrael list? Wouldn't that be a DA list?
Some more statistical analysis. The score is the number of armies that the named army is statistically better than. Negative means they are statistically worse than that number of armies.
I am using a p-value 0.005 cutoff for significance and have excluded armies with less than 20 games.
SM vs CSM - SM win
SM vs SOB - SM win
CSM vs SOB - SOB win
The first game the SM player is someone who has been jumping around to a few different armies, the other two are our group's real Space Marine player. I'm the CSM player in all instances (technically Thousand Sons).
After the latest string of crushing victories our SM player has sworn off Azrael's Parking Lot as being too good and not fun for anyone involved. She's an Iron Hands player who has just been playing with Azrael due to the lack of any real rules for her chapter, so she'll be very excited for the return of chapter tactics I'm sure.
I'm confused. Those 2 wins were with an Azrael list? Wouldn't that be a DA list?
That is correct; she's been doing "counts as" Dark Angels because there are no rules for Iron Hands.
Tau vs Death Guard - DG win
Tau vs Dark Angels - DA win
Tau vs Dark Angels - Tau Win
Seems like the Tau suffer under unit loss way harder since it tends to correspond with enemy units getting in charge range, resulting in anything without fly losing purpose.
Rockfish wrote: Tau vs Death Guard - DG win
Tau vs Dark Angels - DA win
Tau vs Dark Angels - Tau Win
Seems like the Tau suffer under unit loss way harder since it tends to correspond with enemy units getting in charge range, resulting in anything without fly losing purpose.
I've been saying that for weeks before launch that Tau are lunch. We got nothing this edition. The data supports my case and it's only growing by the day. Where is the evidence that Tau are doing fine? Show me dakka.
Rockfish wrote: Tau vs Death Guard - DG win
Tau vs Dark Angels - DA win
Tau vs Dark Angels - Tau Win
Seems like the Tau suffer under unit loss way harder since it tends to correspond with enemy units getting in charge range, resulting in anything without fly losing purpose.
I've been saying that for weeks before launch that Tau are lunch. We got nothing this edition. The data supports my case and it's only growing by the day. Where is the evidence that Tau are doing fine? Show me dakka.
So every Tau player is obviously using optimized 8th lists? I'm not saying I know what that would be as I have not tried I don't play Tau. But more than many other armies what was good for Tau in 7th got hit hard, and if people are still working with those models they are going to struggle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for results thus far mine are
Orks V Ad Mech - Orks win
Orks V Dark Angels - Orks win
Orks V Space Wolves - Orks lose
Also added the games I played/saw today,
Two doubles games (4000pts per team):
World Eaters (Myself) + World Eaters VS Necrons + Imperial Knights
Double WE win.
Imperial Guard + Imperial Guard VS Orks + Eldar
Double IG win.
I then played one of the winning IG players afterwards and beat him.
The orks are coming back, now at 41% win rate. Almost all armies with a lot of games are within +/- 10 % of 50/50. IG is a little warm at 65%. Still not bad, all things considered.
For the orks, I'm suspecting some of the games were from people who haven't played their orks in a long time and weren't used to the shenanigans we had to play in 7th. Presumably they now know that boyz are back. 40% and climbing is good enough.
People must have really been complaining hard to GW about Tau. I should know, I was one of them.
Ouch..i just got almost tabled by 20 hellblasters with captain at 1000 pts... i ran world eaters with zerkers and daemon prince + bikers... hellblaster is truly a deadly weapon. Also, never seen so many 1s in along time
Stat updates! Still using a <0.005 cutoff for significance and with some new entries this time, as we now have some more armies at >20 games. World Eaters have really made a splash.
Dark Eldar vs Ynnari: Win
Dark Eldar vs Necrons: Win
Dark Eldar vs Marines: Win
Dark Eldar vs Grey Knights: Loss
Dark Eldar vs Dark Angels: Win
Dark Eldar vs Tau: Win
Dark Eldar vs Adeptus Militarum: Win
Dark Eldar vs Eldar: Win
Drager wrote: Stat updates! Still using a <0.005 cutoff for significance and with some new entries this time, as we now have some more armies at >20 games. World Eaters have really made a splash.
Marmatag wrote: To be fair, people are playing Tau like they did in 7th.
Every game people drop stuff minimum distance away from my heavy assault army expecting to shoot 1000+ points off of the table in 1 turn.
Aye, the very first game of 8th ed I watched was between a Tau player and a GSC player; the Tau player deployed far too far forward, didn't kill enough in his shooting and got swamped by a genestealer horde. Think some of the Tau players around here learned from their first encounters because I see them deploying further and further back.
Marmatag wrote: To be fair, people are playing Tau like they did in 7th.
Every game people drop stuff minimum distance away from my heavy assault army expecting to shoot 1000+ points off of the table in 1 turn.
Aye, the very first game of 8th ed I watched was between a Tau player and a GSC player; the Tau player deployed far too far forward, didn't kill enough in his shooting and got swamped by a genestealer horde. Think some of the Tau players around here learned from their first encounters because I see them deploying further and further back.
Making the gunline even more of a gunline. I wished GW had developed Tau the other way.
Marmatag wrote: To be fair, people are playing Tau like they did in 7th.
Every game people drop stuff minimum distance away from my heavy assault army expecting to shoot 1000+ points off of the table in 1 turn.
Aye, the very first game of 8th ed I watched was between a Tau player and a GSC player; the Tau player deployed far too far forward, didn't kill enough in his shooting and got swamped by a genestealer horde. Think some of the Tau players around here learned from their first encounters because I see them deploying further and further back.
Making the gunline even more of a gunline. I wished GW had developed Tau the other way.
Well look at AM.
Although being able to shoot anywhere on the board without LOS, and with no penalty, is a pretty big deal.
Not surprised Thousand Sons is doing well, but surprised we're statistically doing THAT well. Maybe we're benefiting from the increase in horde armies? The best thing about our stuff other than survivability is the ability to rip through MEQ's and GEQ's with inferno boltguns, so we might almost be a counter army to conscript spam and such. My personal meta has a lot more tanks and superheavies in it which is harder to deal with in an army barred from taking Havocs.
Are World Eaters winning so much due to Super Heavies or just local metas not ready for Berzerkers ripping through their units wholesale? I'm having a bitch of a time making mine work as well as everyone else it seems.
NO idea about World Eaters, but I've seen a few 1KSons armies with Chaos Preds and Contemptors backing up Rubrics or Scarab Occults. The Scarab Occults seem really good and the vehicles backing them takes care of the weaknesses they have. I played against a list that was something like:
It was a lot of fun to play against. The duel Soulburners where a pain in the arse, but all the terminators in my face meant I couldn't deal with it straight away.
have played about... 5 full games with a clear winner
orks vs Eldar (Eldar win)
orks vs Eldar (Eldar win)
orks vs Eldar (Orks win)
orks vs Eldar (Orks STOMP)
game orks vs tau (Tau win)
I've been saying that for weeks before launch that Tau are lunch. We got nothing this edition. The data supports my case and it's only growing by the day. Where is the evidence that Tau are doing fine? Show me dakka.
I never played Tau in 7th ed. I played in 6th and have come back to 40k here in 8th. I have to say Tau works nothing like it did in 6th. Back then I worked damn hard to avoid getting assaulted. If i succeeded I won, otherwise I usually lost. Here in 8th its virtually impossible to avoid getting assaulted, but I'm a lot more likely to survive. If the assaulted unit has fly I just fall back and shoot. If I don't have fly I fall back and let every other nearby unit shoot. Rinse and repeat mass overwatch.
Anyway so far I'm undefeated as Tau . Note most of my games were pre-FAQ where drones got a pretty hard nerf. I was heavily using deep striking Crisis suits as primary DPS and drones to mitigate damage to them. I'm sure I'll get some losses post faq.
Here's my win/loss rate and also a bunch of other games i've witnessed at the shop.
2k point games
Tau vs. Death Guard - Win: Tau
Tau vs. Chaos Space Marines - Win: Tau
Tau vs. Blood Angels - Win: Tau
Tau vs. Death Guard - Win: Tau
1k games
Tau vs. Deathwatch - Win: Tau
Tau vs. Tyranids - Win Tau
Other games i've witnessed
Khorne Daemons vs. Dark Eldar - Winner: Khorne
Death Guard vs. Dark Eldar - Winner Death Guard
Death Guard vs. Necrons - Winner Death Guard
Death Guard vs. Necrons - Winner Death Guard
Tau vs. Chaos Space Marines - Winner: Tau.
edit: virtually no one at my shop played 40k in 7th edition. Everyone's digging through dusty boxes and reviving long retired armies. All of us are loving 8th ed. rules. Also lots of mistakes are being made. Also have two new players making armies after they watched us old guard get in some games.
Drager wrote: NO idea about World Eaters, but I've seen a few 1KSons armies with Chaos Preds and Contemptors backing up Rubrics or Scarab Occults. The Scarab Occults seem really good and the vehicles backing them takes care of the weaknesses they have. I played against a list that was something like:
It was a lot of fun to play against. The duel Soulburners where a pain in the arse, but all the terminators in my face meant I couldn't deal with it straight away.
Did your opponent deep strike all of those terminators? Seems an odd choice over the Soulreaper Cannon, given you wouldn't be able to use the warpflamer on the turn you come in.
My most recent outing this past Saturday in an ITC tournament saw the following:
Dark Angels vs. Orks: DA victory, by 1 point
Dark Angels vs. Tyranids/Genestealer Cult: Tyranids major victory
Dark Angels vs. Daemons: Daemons major victory
The Daemon list was 8 Nurgle Princes, Epidemius, and like 6 units of Nurglings. I just couldn't kill stuff fast enough since the princes could hide behind the Nurglings for the first couple of turns and throw Smites out. The Nid list had a bunch of cheap Genestealers (GW screwed up making those buggers only cost 10 points; should be 13 or more), plus 3 Mawlocs and a bunch of Hive Guard, Termagants, and Warriors that just hid inside a ruin and threw shots that didn't need LOS to hit. Both of those games were really horrible matchups for my Primaris-heavy DA list. The Ork player's list wasn't bad either, with 3 big units of Boyz, 3 Morkanauts, 2 Big Meks on bikes, a Warboss, and a Wierdboy casting Da Jump. I could have won bigger had I just played smarter.
Orks and ba seem to be doing better lately. As for tau losses, it's probably all due to riptides and broadsides being nerfed. And that's like 90% of what i've seen being fielded in 7-th.
Sisters of Battle v. Grey Knights
Imperial Guard v. Grey Knights
I am currently 12 wins and 0 losses in 8e. I don't expect this to hold, but it's fun being undefeated while it lasts. My IG hit like a sledgehammer, and my Sisters of Battle are holding their own well. I have brainstormed hypothetical lists for my enemies that will fairly handily defeat the ones I'm using, but my opponents haven't yet, and of course, I'm working on staying ahead and developing countermeasures and revisions to my lists to stay three steps ahead of potential opposition.
Games so far:
Astra militarum (ft admech and knight) vs necrons = astra militarum win
Astra militarum (ft admech)vs minotaurs space marines = space marine win
Astra militarum vs tau empire = astra militaum win
Tau vs necrons =3 necron wins, 1 tau win
Tau vs minotaurs space marines = space marine win
Minotaurs space marines vs grey knights = space marine win
Necrons vs dark angels = necron win
Necrons vs death korps of kreig = necron win
Tau vs death korps of krieg = death korps win
Tau vs eldar = tau win
Necrons vs primaris marines + knight = necron win
Necrons vs craftworlds/harlequins = necron win
Dark Eldar (Aeldari) vs Sisters (Adepta Sororitas) Dark Eldar Win, just Thousand Sons (Thousand Sons) vs Guard (Astra Militarum) Thousand Sons Win Tyranids (Tyranid) vs Guard (Astra Militarum) Tyranid Win Tyranids (Tyranid) vs Sisters (Imperium) Sisters Win Ynarri (Ynarri) vs Knights (Imperium) Ynarri win
It's still tough for me to categorise some of my armies as I play Tyranids with GSC a lot and also Dark Eldar Covens with either Ynarri or Craftworld support. I'm currently recording these as Tyranids and Dark Eldar, as those are the main components, usually. I think it may be interesting to start collecting statistics by keyword as well, so I've stuck the keyword I used to build the army in brackets above. Would be nice if others could do that as well if you want. I could then make more informative statistics.
Drager wrote: NO idea about World Eaters, but I've seen a few 1KSons armies with Chaos Preds and Contemptors backing up Rubrics or Scarab Occults. The Scarab Occults seem really good and the vehicles backing them takes care of the weaknesses they have. I played against a list that was something like:
It was a lot of fun to play against. The duel Soulburners where a pain in the arse, but all the terminators in my face meant I couldn't deal with it straight away.
Did your opponent deep strike all of those terminators? Seems an odd choice over the Soulreaper Cannon, given you wouldn't be able to use the warp flamer on the turn you come in.
He did. I guess he figured that he could use the flamers the turn after he came in. Still better than trying to run flamers towards my lines on foot and good for overwatching the countercharge. Not 100% sur eof someone elses intent of course, pretty sure there are better thousand sons lists, but this one was decent.
Win vs IG (foot list)
win vs irks (battlewagons and stormboys)
win vs space marines (raven guard with storm raven)
win vs blood angels (tacs razorbacks, death company)
Arachnofiend wrote:Not surprised Thousand Sons is doing well, but surprised we're statistically doing THAT well. Maybe we're benefiting from the increase in horde armies? The best thing about our stuff other than survivability is the ability to rip through MEQ's and GEQ's with inferno boltguns, so we might almost be a counter army to conscript spam and such. My personal meta has a lot more tanks and superheavies in it which is harder to deal with in an army barred from taking Havocs.
Maybe Magnus has something to do with it seeing as he is a power house now?
andysonic1 wrote:Are World Eaters winning so much due to Super Heavies or just local metas not ready for Berzerkers ripping through their units wholesale? I'm having a bitch of a time making mine work as well as everyone else it seems.
From my experience, the Berzerkers don't tend to mulch through things as easily as it has been made out but they certainly cripple whatever they hit and small groups of them can quite easily tie up units effectively. The real hard hitters in my WE army are the Knight, Bloodthirster, Daemon Prince and Lord of skulls but I doubt they'd have worked as well if the Berzerkers hadn't been able to distract and tie up large portions of my opponants army. (Saying that, yesterday my Berzerkers managed to destroy a full health FW Knight as well as several other space marine units)
koooaei wrote: Orks and ba seem to be doing better lately. As for tau losses, it's probably all due to riptides and broadsides being nerfed. And that's like 90% of what i've seen being fielded in 7-th.
See the thing is, I keep seeing this pop up in this topic and other places in order to explain the Tau's poor placement. Are we really trying to imply all tau loses are due to their players being idiots?
It's been a month already, and I like to believe most wargamers are fairly intelligent. At least enough to see what does and doesn't work in a general sense. What place do you think Tau SHOULD be if you're such an expert on Tau? and how long does it have to be when that still isn't the case before we admit there is a deep seated problem with the Tau army list.
koooaei wrote: Orks and ba seem to be doing better lately. As for tau losses, it's probably all due to riptides and broadsides being nerfed. And that's like 90% of what i've seen being fielded in 7-th.
See the thing is, I keep seeing this pop up in this topic and other places in order to explain the Tau's poor placement. Are we really trying to imply all tau loses are due to their players being idiots?
It's been a month already, and I like to believe most wargamers are fairly intelligent. At least enough to see what does and doesn't work in a general sense. What place do you think Tau SHOULD be if you're such an expert on Tau? and how long does it have to be when that still isn't the case before we admit there is a deep seated problem with the Tau army list.
I don't think anyone thinks they're unintelligent. I think people think it takes time to save up, buy, paint, and write into lists a whole new army that isn't '3 Riptides, repeat as needed.' My local Tau player absolutely knows that that is garbage this edition, but doesn't own anything else and doesn't really want to invest in anything more.
See the thing is, I keep seeing this pop up in this topic and other places in order to explain the Tau's poor placement. Are we really trying to imply all tau loses are due to their players being idiots?
I don't think they are idiots. However in my experience, and this counts myself, when people rely on crutch lists to win games, and those crutches are kicked out from under them, they tend to be average at best.
I 100% agree that tau are not doing so well right now because the players playing tau in a competitive environment were using a crutch list, and those models aren't that good right now, and we're seeing how important math and list-building are to 40k.
A lot of players that were mopping up people in 7e are struggling now because they need time to collect the new OP list to get back on top.
A lot of armies that were doing badly in 7e are suddenly doing well.
Its not that poor players suddenly became good and good players suddenly became poor. Its that the math changed and this shows how important dominating the math in 40k really is.
koooaei wrote: Orks and ba seem to be doing better lately. As for tau losses, it's probably all due to riptides and broadsides being nerfed. And that's like 90% of what i've seen being fielded in 7-th.
See the thing is, I keep seeing this pop up in this topic and other places in order to explain the Tau's poor placement. Are we really trying to imply all tau loses are due to their players being idiots?
It's been a month already, and I like to believe most wargamers are fairly intelligent. At least enough to see what does and doesn't work in a general sense. What place do you think Tau SHOULD be if you're such an expert on Tau? and how long does it have to be when that still isn't the case before we admit there is a deep seated problem with the Tau army list.
I don't think anyone thinks they're unintelligent. I think people think it takes time to save up, buy, paint, and write into lists a whole new army that isn't '3 Riptides, repeat as needed.' My local Tau player absolutely knows that that is garbage this edition, but doesn't own anything else and doesn't really want to invest in anything more.
He is either a band wagoner or lazy or possibly even poor. If he is lazy I can sympathise myself since I hate doing certain things when painting but know it looks better if I do. If he is band wagoning then whatever. I would say the majority of Tau players here had a wide array of units and I don't even own more than one Riptide. Still I haven't had a chance to test out my usual lists in 8th edition. My big tournament is coming up next week but it is way unconventional list for me and I don't think I'll win. I'm bringing some stuff just to show how well painted it is (titan). So it's most of my list. hopefully I can get some regular games in with a more normal army. Most of the players are trying to use a lot of different things they aren't dumb, but I don't know in detail what they have or have tried and against who. Still despite wanting to play Tau most of them are hanging it up for 8th or until massive changes come. That is all I can say form here.
There's a guy at our local playing Tau with hammerheads and firewarriors screened by Kroot. I'll ask him how his games are going then post them up here. He seemed to be doing ok in the one game I wandered past vs demons. I know he had Longstrike and 2 of the variant hammerheads with the missiles. 16 bs2+ missiles and a BS2+ ion rifle seemed to do some work, but like I said I was just wandering past, don't knwo how it ended.
I guess a smaller model collection would be a more optimistic view on it, but it's also weird to think that's the case but chaos players were dutifully collecting berzerkers even though Assault was horrible in 6th/7th, not to mention the ability to proxy
Luke_Prowler wrote: I guess a smaller model collection would be a more optimistic view on it, but it's also weird to think that's the case but chaos players were dutifully collecting berzerkers even though Assault was horrible in 6th/7th, not to mention the ability to proxy
Exactly I'm not getting rid of my Tau army just because an edition is bad and I'm not going to stop collecting. So to my many dakka adorers this could mean many years of fruitful posts from me your favourite Tau player Gamgee. I hope GW take their words to heart and want to balance the game in an ongoing way every few months like other more competitive wargames. If they are afraid Tau will become too strong too fast just make small tiny incremental changes until the Tau have been tapped into place (assuming there is balance issues).
Luke_Prowler wrote: I guess a smaller model collection would be a more optimistic view on it, but it's also weird to think that's the case but chaos players were dutifully collecting berzerkers even though Assault was horrible in 6th/7th, not to mention the ability to proxy
This is a hobby you build and collect for the long term. If you only build for the power each edition you'll find yourself caught flatfooted a lot.
And of course there are those people who mistake codex power for tactical brilliance. They are having a rough time right now.
andysonic1 wrote:Are World Eaters winning so much due to Super Heavies or just local metas not ready for Berzerkers ripping through their units wholesale? I'm having a bitch of a time making mine work as well as everyone else it seems.
From my experience, the Berzerkers don't tend to mulch through things as easily as it has been made out but they certainly cripple whatever they hit and small groups of them can quite easily tie up units effectively. The real hard hitters in my WE army are the Knight, Bloodthirster, Daemon Prince and Lord of skulls but I doubt they'd have worked as well if the Berzerkers hadn't been able to distract and tie up large portions of my opponants army. (Saying that, yesterday my Berzerkers managed to destroy a full health FW Knight as well as several other space marine units)
I shy away from lords of war because I don't have any qq. If I did I would take either a Knight or a Kytan as those seem like the ones that aren't going to be hit by the ban hammer come widespread tournament rules. I do have a Bloodthirster though and have been thinking about digging him out and fixing him because I broke the ever loving gak out of him at the end of my KDK days by accident. My only problem is I tend to focus on the small killy units like Deamon Princes and Juggerlords and Helbrutes, making the Bloodthirster one of the only initial targets for my opponent meaning he'll most likely die to concentrated fire within the first round of combat. I was considering a Kytan but need to do more mathhammer to see if it is actually a good model or not.
HUGE amount of zerkers played yesterday with some friends. 80 zerkers sorceror and kharn. It was nuts but we got crushed by FW imperium shooting. Which made it unfun. Anyway 1 loss for WE. Also Magnus and spawns v tyranids FW= Magnus slaps the semis scum. 1 win for TS
Here are all my games since 8th ed released. Most recent first.
IG v SM 1.5k - IG win
IG v SM 1k - SM win
IG v BA 2k - BA win
IG v Ravenwing 2k - Draw from time
IG v SM 2k - IG win
IG v SM 2k - SM win
IG v SM 2k - IG win
IG + SM v SW + Tau 2k - IG + SM win
IG v BA 1.5k - IG win
IG v SM 1k - IG win
IG v SM 1k - IG win
IG v Tau 1k - Draw (he won on KP, but then we realized my overcharged plasmas do 2D each and would have done enough damage to kill his Riptide, which would have tabled him)
I seen these being played recently at my local may as well get them on the tracker.
Tau vs Space Marines: Space Marine win.
Tau vs Necrons: Necron Win.
Makes me wonder whether the Markerlights nerf was too much. 5 for +1 BS seems far too much.
Suits seem a tad overpriced, not to mention vehicles that really suffer from moving.
Tau armies right now be like. For a small donation you can save a Riptide from a cruel owner who doesn't want it anymore in 8th edition. There are many more Tau armies and units in need of loving owners out there today and only you can help.
Tau vs Tau - (My) Tau win
Tau vs Blood Angels - Tau win
Granted both of these games were against fairly new players who are still learning 8th and the game in general, but I'm also still learning 8th so it kinda balances out. Definitely impressed with Stealth Suits, they are surprisingly durable with a -1 to hit and getting a 2+ save in cover and serve as a great distraction unit while still putting out some good firepower if your opponent ignores them.
Drager wrote: World Eaters vs Tau.... Tau victory. I know. Shocking. Apparently, the Missile Hammerheads did a good job. This is not a game I played.
I may be mistaken, but I've noticing that shooty armies can deal with Tau much better than most melee-y armies can.
I made 2 similar lists between Necrons and Tau, both fighting an almost all-melee Space Wolves list. Necrons were swept aside, while the Tau hold back.
Such a list vs AM with 11 vehicles, didn't fare as well at all.
With this week's FWFAQ on Index Xenos, we might find more Tau victories in the future
Drager wrote: World Eaters vs Tau.... Tau victory. I know. Shocking. Apparently, the Missile Hammerheads did a good job. This is not a game I played.
I may be mistaken, but I've noticing that shooty armies can deal with Tau much better than most melee-y armies can.
I made 2 similar lists between Necrons and Tau, both fighting an almost all-melee Space Wolves list. Necrons were swept aside, while the Tau hold back.
Such a list vs AM with 11 vehicles, didn't fare as well at all.
With this week's FWFAQ on Index Xenos, we might find more Tau victories in the future
I've kinda noticed this too, but it seems more to me that people are just still approaching melee against Tau from a pre-8th mindset. Before, you charged a Tau unit and either you wiped them out in one round of combat, or they ended up locked in combat the rest of the game and might as well have been destroyed for all they did in the battle after that. That's all gone in 8th. Gone are the days of forcing Tau players to waste their overwatch on a 3 man unit charging from 10" away while a Terminator squad sat 3" away. Gone are the days that you can charge a combat squad into my battlesuits and render them useless by locking them in CC all game. My guys can leave the combat now, and a very large percentage of my army can still shoot after doing so. All of a sudden you have to treat melee with Tau the same way you treated melee with the rest of the armies in the game; you need an immediate decisive strike to cripple or kill me as soon as possible rather than trying to lock me up or attrition me out. As much as Tau players need to relearn our army, our opponents need to rethink their strategies for handling us. As melee focused armies learn that, I think they will be able to handle us Tau fairly well.
Makes me wonder whether the Markerlights nerf was too much. 5 for +1 BS seems far too much.
Suits seem a tad overpriced, not to mention vehicles that really suffer from moving.
You can't argue Tau are underpowered based on this data unless you're prepared to argue that AM is vastly overpowered.
There is a saying in Evidence (law) that I think is appropriate here.
"A brick is not a wall."
The gist is that evidence is often cumulative, and evidence need not be the entire "wall" for it to play a part in that "wall", and can and should be considered for that purpose.
Relying SOLELY on these numbers would probably be problematic, these numbers are not the sole measure by which we can argue relative army power.
You would look at the underlying mathhammer.
You would look at the casually-reported results here.
You would look at the results for ITC and other large tournaments.
You would look at the results for smaller tournaments (probably with less reliance than on larger tournaments, due to statistical issues).
You would look even at your own experience.
Its certainly possible that AM aren't doing as well in other areas of inquiry, and thus that AM aren't necessarily overpowered (despite kicking ass and taking names in this thread).
...But honestly, the vast majority of data we have available is suggesting that T'au are in a relatively poor place right now. In ITC and other larger tournaments, T'au are getting slaughtered, and the same is applying here. There is personal experience going both ways, but the vast majority of personal experience (in this thread, and elsewhere) seems to be "we've been gutted". There was a smaller tournament where T'au did well, reportedly, but again it was a small tournament (which introduces statistical issues), so the weight of evidence is clearly aligned in a particular direction.
I think it's because they lost all that formation-based crap they had, and many of the players are lost without it.
I have come to this conclusion by watching Tau players' games. There was one who picked up Tau in 7e and spent a considerable amount of prep time complaining about the removal of formations, and he was beaten by the Ork player facing him. But there was another who didn't actually play Tau and was borrowing his friend's army to try it out, who won one game and pulled it close in another against a considerably more experienced player.
Here's the thing: I just don't think it's possible to go for just wiping out the enemy force anymore, you actually have to play to and capture the objectives. To this end, you need to have things other than big suits. Assault-out-of-deepstrike and turn 1 charges may be hurting them disproportionately, though, since they work similar to Imperial Guard but lack the defensive perimeter of cheap, expendable troopers.
I think it's because they lost all that formation-based crap they had, and many of the players are lost without it.
I have come to this conclusion by watching Tau players' games. There was one who picked up Tau in 7e and spent a considerable amount of prep time complaining about the removal of formations, and he was beaten by the Ork player facing him. But there was another who didn't actually play Tau and was borrowing his friend's army to try it out, who won one game and pulled it close in another against a considerably more experienced player.
Here's the thing: I just don't think it's possible to go for just wiping out the enemy force anymore, you actually have to play to and capture the objectives. To this end, you need to have things other than big suits.
There are now plenty of people trying non suit based lists and getting tabled slightly less and reporting they are "slightly" better but the key word is slight. Infantry lists don't win games and none of our big stuff is priced fairly to support them. It's going on two and a half months this weekend since people have been playing Tau and I know many people are letting Tau players proxy units into their army for testing perposes or even Tau players finishing the infantry and playing lists with it.
They are simply not winning. The Tau are in dire straights. They rely on being the best shooting army and that was taken away from them. Even in 7th the data supported that they were already a mid tier army other than the broken stuff like Riptide wings, Storm Surge spam, and some broken formations. Once those were taken away Tau were typically a mid tier codex. However the stuff that was mid tier was somehow seen as too powerful and over nerfed and now we end up with the Tau where they are now.
8th edition made every army nearly as good at shooting as the Tau used too (in 7th) and the Tau got nothing to make them stand out for shooting in 8th. So naturally we are now at this impasse where our army isn't capable of all that much in a competitive or even semi-competitive sense.
I've been here since day one of the 8th edition leaks saying Tau were going to be weak and every day more evidence arises and all of our detractors continually fail to provide any sort of evidence other than emotional arguments or perhaps sheer misinformation due to simply not knowing. The goalposts have been moved a lot in regards to the Tau. We always need to keep adapting and keep trying harder and harder. Then when we do and still fail we get told to do the same thing.
I've been here since day one of the 8th edition leaks saying Tau were going to be weak and every day more evidence arises and all of our detractors continually fail to provide any sort of evidence other than emotional arguments or perhaps sheer misinformation due to simply not knowing. The goalposts have been moved a lot in regards to the Tau. We always need to keep adapting and keep trying harder and harder. Then when we do and still fail we get told to do the same thing.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Infuriatingly, this is the same thing that happened to the bottom-tier armies in 5e, 6e, and 7e. People who used them knew they were crap. Some people who fought them also knew they were crap. Significant parts of the playerbase then yelled "Git Gud Sun" at people who in the previous edition had been tournament winners/runners-up.
I think it's because they lost all that formation-based crap they had, and many of the players are lost without it.
I have come to this conclusion by watching Tau players' games. There was one who picked up Tau in 7e and spent a considerable amount of prep time complaining about the removal of formations, and he was beaten by the Ork player facing him. But there was another who didn't actually play Tau and was borrowing his friend's army to try it out, who won one game and pulled it close in another against a considerably more experienced player.
Here's the thing: I just don't think it's possible to go for just wiping out the enemy force anymore, you actually have to play to and capture the objectives. To this end, you need to have things other than big suits.
There are now plenty of people trying non suit based lists and getting tabled slightly less and reporting they are "slightly" better but the key word is slight. Infantry lists don't win games and none of our big stuff is priced fairly to support them. It's going on two and a half months this weekend since people have been playing Tau and I know many people are letting Tau players proxy units into their army for testing perposes or even Tau players finishing the infantry and playing lists with it.
They are simply not winning. The Tau are in dire straights. They rely on being the best shooting army and that was taken away from them. Even in 7th the data supported that they were already a mid tier army other than the broken stuff like Riptide wings, Storm Surge spam, and some broken formations. Once those were taken away Tau were typically a mid tier codex. However the stuff that was mid tier was somehow seen as too powerful and over nerfed and now we end up with the Tau where they are now.
8th edition made every army nearly as good at shooting as the Tau used too (in 7th) and the Tau got nothing to make them stand out for shooting in 8th. So naturally we are now at this impasse where our army isn't capable of all that much in a competitive or even semi-competitive sense.
I've been here since day one of the 8th edition leaks saying Tau were going to be weak and every day more evidence arises and all of our detractors continually fail to provide any sort of evidence other than emotional arguments or perhaps sheer misinformation due to simply not knowing. The goalposts have been moved a lot in regards to the Tau. We always need to keep adapting and keep trying harder and harder. Then when we do and still fail we get told to do the same thing.
Absolutely ridiculous.
I maintain that we were the best shooting army, always and forever, and Tau was second. But that's besides the point.
Anyway, I don't think Tau are in dire straits, because they look to me like Imperial Guard -1. And it's Imperial Guard -1 because they don't have Conscripts to screen the perimeter against assault.
I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it. I'm not sure how every other army's shooting was buffed, either. In fact, it seems to me that every army's shooting got worse.
I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.
People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.
Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.
Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.
Set up your walls of conscripts. Put down your tanks out of LOS.
No matter where your opponent deploys, you'll be erasing 2-3 units per turn with absolute ease, and it will take them a couple turns to actually get to your tanks, if they get there at all.
It's the same game every time. Playing AM in 8th is like playing against Tau in 7th.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.
Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.
Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.
Idea for 9th edition I guess.
/sarcasm
Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm
Here's what I hypothesize: Tau relied on gunning down the enemy with elite, high-efficiency shooting units before they reach their lines. Because of a variety of changes unrelated to the units in the Tau army, namely charging out of deep strike, charging out of transports, and easy turn-1 charges, Tau are unable to do so. In addition, my army, which is functionally similar, has the ability to put a big wall of bodies between my big guns and the turn 1 charge, whereas the Tau equivalent unit is twice the cost.
Hammerheads are the same price as a Leman Russ, and function similarly. Fire Warriors look pretty decent too. Kroot look pretty decent deployed en-masse. Little suits look pretty decent deployed in small numbers. What looks distinctly bad to me are the really big guys.
Set up your walls of conscripts. Put down your tanks out of LOS.
No matter where your opponent deploys, you'll be erasing 2-3 units per turn with absolute ease, and it will take them a couple turns to actually get to your tanks, if they get there at all.
It's the same game every time. Playing AM in 8th is like playing against Tau in 7th.
The armies just flip flopped, is all.
Dunno, I always felt tau at least took some planning and thought outside of pure riptide/stormsurge spam, which stands in stark contrast to guard which is all basically abusing under costed units and cheap force multipliers.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I maintain that we were the best shooting army, always and forever, and Tau was a second. But that's besides the point.
Anyway, I don't think Tau are in dire straits, because they look to me like Imperial Guard -1. And it's Imperial Guard -1 because they don't have Conscripts to screen the perimeter against assault.
I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it. I'm not sure how every other army's shooting was buffed, either. In fact, it seems to me that every army's shooting got worse.
Cover changed and is less important. Even if it were still important tau aren't actually that great at ignoring it these days. That plus the fact they can longer gain access to BS increases easily, markerlights now offer the same basic benefit most generic HQs offer.
Also, IG -1 would imply they had most of the tools of the guard. Orders are a much better force muliplier than marker lights currently, no widespread morale immunity, troops are actually priced more or less fairly, no cheap yet highly dangerous artillery to speak of, etc. Dunno, looks like they are missing most of the cheese 8th edition guard uses to win.
I think it's because they lost all that formation-based crap they had, and many of the players are lost without it.
I have come to this conclusion by watching Tau players' games. There was one who picked up Tau in 7e and spent a considerable amount of prep time complaining about the removal of formations, and he was beaten by the Ork player facing him. But there was another who didn't actually play Tau and was borrowing his friend's army to try it out, who won one game and pulled it close in another against a considerably more experienced player.
Here's the thing: I just don't think it's possible to go for just wiping out the enemy force anymore, you actually have to play to and capture the objectives. To this end, you need to have things other than big suits. Assault-out-of-deepstrike and turn 1 charges may be hurting them disproportionately, though, since they work similar to Imperial Guard but lack the defensive perimeter of cheap, expendable troopers.
I've seen this idea tossed around a few times in this thread and elsewhere on dakka. I have issues with this line of thinking for 2 reasons.
1. It presumes that all Tau players were running the same OP formations (Riptide Wing, OSC, Hunter Cadres with Stormsurges, etc.) and that that is all they played. While that may be the case for tournaments, that's how it goes at tournaments at all but the highest level (just like the majority of Space Marine players at tournaments ran battle company or super friends or what have you). You're assuming that all Tau players just ran netlists without actually learning our army and codex and coming up with these lists ourselves.
2. The bigger issue IMO. It assumes that there are no good players among Tau players. A good player in this game can adapt fairly quickly, figure out what's good and what isn't when changes happen to their army, and adjust their lists and playstyles accordingly. According to you, that is not happening among Tau players. Which says that Tau players are poor players who aren't actually good at this game, and that, going back to point 1, only won or performed well last edition because we ran netlists. And now without those netlists our poor player skill is revealing itself.
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Tau are a quality shooting army. The fluff is to bring the right weapon pinpoint the target and blast it. We did that with crisis suits dropping in, markerlighting a target and killing it. Thats why we are a bs4+ army. In the 4th end codex suits could take an upgrade to make them hit on 3s to reduce our need for markers. In 6 and 7th we needed them to compete with other armies that have the 3+ built in.
But now markers don't allow that. To invest in the 5+ markers on a target we lose the points we need to actually kill the targets. I stopped bringing markers( one if the iconic mechanics of rau) because I'd rather just bring more damaging guns. But with only 50% accuracy its tough to have the longevity to win games
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Here's what I hypothesize: Tau relied on gunning down the enemy with elite, high-efficiency shooting units before they reach their lines. Because of a variety of changes unrelated to the units in the Tau army, namely charging out of deep strike, charging out of transports, and easy turn-1 charges, Tau are unable to do so. In addition, my army, which is functionally similar, has the ability to put a big wall of bodies between my big guns and the turn 1 charge, whereas the Tau equivalent unit is twice the cost.
Hammerheads are the same price as a Leman Russ, and function similarly. Fire Warriors look pretty decent too. Kroot look pretty decent deployed en-masse. Little suits look pretty decent deployed in small numbers. What looks distinctly bad to me are the really big guys.
Oh come on, that's not even true.A Leman Russ isn't even particularly impressive for the IG right now for one. Secondly, they can fit far more firepower on each tank, whereas each hammerhead you basically just get the main gun, maybe some burst cannons or drones.
Fire warriors cost twice what a normal guard soldier costs. Slightly better armor save and a stronger gun with more range aren't worth twice the points. Then we factor in normal guard squads access to heavy and special weapons, access to better force mulipliers thanks to commanders, better morale rules thanks to commissars... nope.
Kroot are even worse. Two conscripts for the same price... nope. Kroot have a lower armor save, only one attack each even at WS 3+ makes it a wash, even with the higher strength they are only barely better at putting out damage in melee and worse at range. Plus again, 1 wound, toughness 3, and a 6+ save for 6 points better have ork boy level offensive power to make them worthwhile, kroot don't come anywhere close to that.
No, T'au are low tier, they don't compare favorable to balanced armies, much less guard.
GI_Redshirt wrote: According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.
Idea for 9th edition I guess.
/sarcasm
Surprisingly, in PL Crisis are much better costed than in points, as are Broadsides and Remoras. However, we can't get PL games all the time...
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I maintain that we were the best shooting army, always and forever, and Tau was second. But that's besides the point.
Eh, I have (or had?) a different view: while AM was about quantity of shooting, Tau was about quality of shooting.
AM killed stuff by throwing buckets of dice (more or less like a ranged version of Orks) and Tau killed by rolling better with less dice.
I surely agree AM wasn't in a good shape back in 7th and deserved a buff, but that doesn't mean Tau had to get what it got... one of the playtesters (Frankie from FLG, I think) said Tau was the new Guard. Hm... if I wanted to play Guard, I'd play with Guard models and rules, right?
With that in mind, I completely agree with other Tau posters. This 'new' Tau doesn't feel like the Tau of the last 2 editions (not considering broken formations or stupid ally tables, a I used neither). I hope the codex will bring forth interesting tools to help with our situation!
Well there is still hope that s codex will bring back jsj. The suits all still have the jetpack keyword. While it does nothing right now it might in the future.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.
Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.
Idea for 9th edition I guess.
/sarcasm
Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm
If only there were a third option...
...perhaps one that didn't use points at all, since everyone seems to complain about those, or some variety of them.
Hmm. Maybe 10th edition will see this style of play in the rulebook.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.
Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.
Idea for 9th edition I guess.
/sarcasm
Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm
If only there were a third option...
...perhaps one that didn't use points at all, since everyone seems to complain about those, or some variety of them.
Hmm. Maybe 10th edition will see this style of play in the rulebook.
Oh, I see what you mean. I guess AoS had it right all along - it's not GW that's the problem, it's the points system itself that's the problem! I guess it's time to just match armies of equal model-counts. Ima place down my 9 Leman Russ tanks and a Baneblade and wait for a response.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm not sure how their "best shooting" was taken away. It looks to me like just about everything has the same stats it did before, so unless the magic is in the new Plasmaguns I'm not seeing it.
Points, man, points! We use a points system. You don't have to get a stat reduction to be made useless.
If only there were modes of play that didn't use points.
Idea for 9th edition I guess.
/sarcasm
Oh yes, because dividing the points by 20 and not paying for upgrades is SO much more balanced. /sarcasm
If only there were a third option...
...perhaps one that didn't use points at all, since everyone seems to complain about those, or some variety of them.
Hmm. Maybe 10th edition will see this style of play in the rulebook.
Oh, I see hwat you mean. I gues AoS had it right all along - it's not GW that's the problem, it's the points system itself that's the problem! I guess it's time to just match armies of equal model-counts. Ima place down my 9 Leman Russ tanks and a Baneblade and wait for a response.
I can respond with exactly the same army! Sounds like a badass battle. Are you in the DC area?
GI_Redshirt wrote: According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.
Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.
I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?
Spoiler:
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
Find something for the remaining 112 points.
It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay. Pack in all the Fire Warriors in close rank 4" behind the Kroot Hounds, then shoot them. Fall back as necessary to stay out of combat and keep a thin red line between you and the enemy, then cap the points with Hammerheads and Stealthsuits at the game's end. Hammerheads are apparently quite good, and while they're better than Russes at their cost, I'm not totally seeing it. But then again, I'm not super impressed by non-Tank Commander Russes that aren't Punishers either.
Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.
GI_Redshirt wrote: According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.
Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.
I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?
Spoiler:
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
Find something for the remaining 112 points.
It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay. Pack in all the Fire Warriors in close rank 4" behind the Kroot Hounds, then shoot them. Fall back as necessary to stay out of combat and keep a thin red line between you and the enemy, then cap the points with Hammerheads and Stealthsuits at the game's end. Hammerheads are apparently quite good, and while they're better than Russes at their cost, I'm not totally seeing it. But then again, I'm not super impressed by non-Tank Commander Russes that aren't Punishers either.
Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.
No one is gonna spend the dosh to field that list for the short term wins potentially, let's do the math as if the player had the suits and hammerheads since they are popular enough and were buying from GW.
so ~$880 in new stuff, now I expect most people will already have 2-4 boxes of FW and a fireblade, so $615-$735. So you are saying that player should be willing to drop a ton just to play what is effectively a gimped guard list?
No one is gonna spend the dosh to field that list for the short term wins potentially, let's do the math as if the player had the suits and hammerheads since they are popular enough and were buying from GW.
so ~$880 in new stuff, now I expect most people will already have 2-4 boxes of FW and a fireblade, so $615-$735. So you are saying that player should be willing to drop a ton just to play what is effectively a gimped guard list?
"Yes! Isn't it a brilliant idea? And, once we've released the Tau codex, you'll be able to pay that all over again. We will even try to shake up the meta and pricing structure so much that you'll have the fantastic opportunity to pay ~£2,500GBP for the only valid army we will allow you to have! Simply the most wonderfullest the H-H-H-Hobby has ever been!" - GW 2017/18
GI_Redshirt wrote: According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Again... some people will forever remain convinced they win purely on skill and everyone else loses because they are bad.... regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Not a lot you can do to sway such a person.
Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.
I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?
Spoiler:
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
Find something for the remaining 112 points.
It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay. Pack in all the Fire Warriors in close rank 4" behind the Kroot Hounds, then shoot them. Fall back as necessary to stay out of combat and keep a thin red line between you and the enemy, then cap the points with Hammerheads and Stealthsuits at the game's end. Hammerheads are apparently quite good, and while they're better than Russes at their cost, I'm not totally seeing it. But then again, I'm not super impressed by non-Tank Commander Russes that aren't Punishers either.
Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.
No one is gonna spend the dosh to field that list for the short term wins potentially, let's do the math as if the player had the suits and hammerheads since they are popular enough and were buying from GW.
so ~$880 in new stuff, now I expect most people will already have 2-4 boxes of FW and a fireblade, so $615-$735. So you are still saying that player should be willing to drop a ton just to play what is effectively a gimped guard list?
I easily have a fair amount of stuff for each of my armies to bring them up to meeting the new meta. Let's see: 10x Seraphim at 11/model, 17x Storm Bolters at 9/model, 4x Sister Superiors at 11/model, 2x Repressor conversion at ?/model, 2x Leman Russ Punisher at 50/model, 2x Sabre Searchlight scratchbuild at ?/model, 30x troopers at 2/model, and the list goes on because I haven't even reached units that are good but I'm not in love with their appearance. Asking people to buy a few new units isn't particularly bad, and is pretty much expected.
The Tau players I know who are long time players have 60 or so, and one guy has more fire warriors than I have guardsmen, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for an edition to require a new box or two. I don't think I've ever seen anyone with Kroot Hounds, and didn't actually know they were a thing until I flipped through your index to write that list. And, of course, you can always sub-in Suit Commanders or Ghostkeels in the place of some of the Fire Warrior squads.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Not all Tau players, and I didn't mean to say you specifically are bad. However, there was at least one person last night, and I know about a half-dozen other Tau players who were playing Tau to capitalize on cheese, and 3 who weren't. While it is a small sample size, if all these people are playing Tau, I expect the 3 players who play because they like the aesthetic and theme to keep around, or a bit under 50/50 and the other half-dozen to loose a bunch of games quickly in the first few months before enlisting in the Imperial Guard, buying 150 Conscripts and 8 Manticores, and then discarding that when the next edition comes around for whatever else is next most overpowered.
I think that, since my army is doing so well [I'm 12 for 12, with many of those as IG], and Tau are like my army but less points efficient, that Tau can do okay. It would be fairly strange for two, very similar armies in playstyle to end up at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Can someone try something along these lines, and tell me where it breaks?
Spoiler:
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
42-Cadre Fireblade
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
40-5 Fire Warriors
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
16-4 Kroot Hounds
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
101-Stealthsuits w/ Fusion Gun
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
175-Hammerhead w/ Railgun and Burst Cannons
Find something for the remaining 112 points.
It's not as efficient as what the Guard does, but I think it will do okay.
I think the first issue I see is you seem to think the viability of guard is tied to that particular unit selection. Which isn't really the case. Guard works like that because guard is really cheap, not because of the merits of the particular composition. For more specific issues
Spoiler:
Well, first off markerlights aren't great, but you still need some to get the rerolls of one. Just... not really much beyond that.
Secondly, at 8 points Tau are a bit expensive to spam infantry. The reason guard work is because they are cheap, pricier infantry aren't that valuable without toughness and firepower that scale according. Which few if any do. Playing admech, my vanguard work because their firepower is the rare exception that is close to the correct price, and with the cover buff to my entire army I can almost be appropriately costed for toughness. Another example of well costed infantry would be sisters of battle, which at a point higher are going to outperform fire warriors by a large margin.
This could be patched if tau had solid force multipliers, but again fire blade cadres aren't company commanders. They are offering an extra shot at half range, not twice as many shots at any range. So again, combined with the mediocrity of firewarriors, fireblades are themselves questionable.
Stealth suits might actually be an interesting choice, but the weapon systems for it are far to expensive. At 30 points per burst cannon armed suit, you are buying a terminator with infiltrate instead of deepstrike, no melee options, and limited ability to get special weapons unlike chaos terminators. They aren't the worst thing, they just lack a purpose besides mediocre anti infantry and kinda tough for their price.
The hammerhead is again a questionable choice, being an expensive frame for a lone anti tank weapon with more mediocre anti infantry.
A better idea would be to find the toughest infantry for their points you can with at least some firepower, then try to milk what synergy you can, along with anything that's notably good for it's price. The former might be drones backed up by stealth suits with a drone controller, who combined manage to mostly be worth their price. The latter is even harder, I'm not sure T'au has anything going for it. The vehicles can't mount enough guns to make them a worthwhile investment, battlesuits have low BS considering how expensive all the guns are, and all of the basic infantry are far too expensive to be the core. Deep striking commanders and maybe the bomber (which can remove half a unit of infantry per turn without even shooting) are the only standouts I see, and that's not a lot to work with.
This still isn't good... but at least it plays to the virtually non existent strengths of the T'au. Seriously though, I found a grand total of two units that looked well priced in the entire codex. Even those aren't gamebreakingly cheap, but jus tunits actually reflective of the price other armies pay for similar units. 10 points for a gun that's a marginally better combi bolter on an army with worse BS across the board is borderline insulting.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Here's the thing. I play Guard and Sisters. Last edition, we [IG] weren't at the top, and we weren't at the bottom. I beat the Tau, and other OP stuff, and I did it fairly regularly, it just always felt like I had to try hard, and sometimes get lucky on dice rolls, to ensure a win, compared to this edition where I put my stuff of the table and point and click to win. I suspect the Tau are in a similar state. Certainly not the top, but I don't think they're so bad they can't win near 50/50 once all the meta sorts out and people know what to bring.
No T'au are more like CSM last edition, where you probably won't going to win because your entire army is notably overpriced for what it does. Guard was never in that bad of shape, they had at least a couple niche builds. But T'au are literally just a worse version of other better armies, which was literally CSM last edition, at least pre traitor legions. With the additional downside of not being able to rely on allies the way imperial or even chaos armies can.
Having to buy a couple new units for the new edition is fine, players should expect that. They should not expect to suddenly have to magically acquire 9 boxes of FW just to build a decent list.
Also aren't you just advocating for the very thing you said was Tau's problem, just going out and buying whatever netlist is good and not actually knowing their army? Is that suddenly ok because you're advocating for it or because they're using models you like?
And finally, the entire purpose of that list you made was to have Tau run a guard style list since we're apparently "the new Guard" or Guard -1 or whatever. If that's the case, we can't just sub in Commanders or Ghostkeels, now can we? Those don't have Guard equivalents so we can't just throw them into a list and say that that list still mirrors Guard style play, now does it?
And that's ignoring the fact that that list is the equivalent of trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. First off Guard would be able to build an equivalent list for much cheaper, no? And guard would be able to get special/heavy weapons in the infantry units, rounding out the firepower while the FW will be stuck with their base guns. Also a Guard equivalent list would have access to orders and potentially psychic powers and whatnot while this list has minimal access to Tau's "equivalent" answer in the form of Markerlights, Support Systems, Invocation, etc.
But this whole conversation is getting off topic, so we should probably move it to another thread instead of clogging up this one.
SilverAlien wrote: I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.
People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.
Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.
Some people just can't accept balance issues.
yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.
SilverAlien wrote: I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.
People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.
Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.
Some people just can't accept balance issues.
yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.
Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.
Orks came in second in a 100 person tournament. There are good Ork lists. This poll actually has Orks trending up. They started out as the worst faction. Their win rate is improving every week.
SilverAlien wrote: I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.
People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.
Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.
Some people just can't accept balance issues.
yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.
Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.
Orks came in second in a 100 person tournament. There are good Ork lists. This poll actually has Orks trending up. They started out as the worst faction. Their win rate is improving every week.
Yup, and I predict that this trend won't last long. Everyone went from playing their Speed Freak Warbiker heavy lists to playing straight Horde style because Bikes now suck. Give it another couple months and Orkz will be bottom tier just like last edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Orkz are winning 41.74% of the time based on the numbers on the 1st page.
The only Main armies that come close to that level are
CSM: 41.89% And Dark Angels: 44.44%
Armies with bad ratings that are easily explained are SM: 41.98%: They are the biggest faction by far and the unofficial starting army, so you are going to have a plethora of unskilled players here
And
Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.
So this army is going through a learning curve much harsher then most other armies are.
So based on the win/loss ratio and having read the codices I feel fairly confident in my prediction that Orkz will be bottom tier for yet another edition unless GW gets off their butts and gives us a good 8th edition codex.
Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?
Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!
Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?
Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!
Anyone up for Tau-hate bingo? They are getting so predictable we can make a game out of it. I also addressed that point in the thread many times now. From a different angle than that and with some solid reasoning.
As an aside. Someone on dakka once asked me why it feels like it's been forever since 8th dropped and the Tau came out. Imagine every day for your faction is black Friday on the internet and your trying to hold back the tide of canned anti-tau/tau are fine/get good responses. Naturally it makes time feel slow and like its taking forever for any change to happen.
Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?
Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!
Who was the EASIEST faction to play and to excel at last edition without having to invest much time/effort into the army? your answer is TAU. So unfortunately that faction is infested with players either who just joined and picked tau because it was relatively cheap/easy to play and a bunch of players who are used to blasting opponents off the table before turn 3.
So yes my argument is that this is why the Tau faction is doing so badly right now. Am I saying every Tau player is like that? Nope, and you knew that from the start you just choose to come in and post that little tidbit.
I have looked over the Tau codex a fair bit and I can say that they got hit with the nerf hammer pretty hard, however they also got some pretty nifty buffs on other units, Commanders now are ridiculous as are a couple of other units. the biggest problem I see right now is that the Riptide and Stormsurge are no longer auto-includes and that is really playing havoc with most players lists, especially since every Tau Player I went against tended to field 3 of the things.
Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.
According to you and anyone else who posts something along these lines, the only reason Tau are having a poor showing in 8th edition is because Tau players suck at this game and can only do well when they run netlists. Not because we were heavily nerfed. Not because many of our staple units in the army are overpriced. Not because our internal army balance is about as bad as 7th edition Tyranids. Because we all just need to "git gud". Does this apply to some Tau players? Absolutely it does, just as it would apply to the players of any army. But to say that our poor record reflected in this thread is based solely on us being all bad players who can't win without our army being OP? Is that the argument you are trying to make here? Cause that is how people, especially Tau players, are going to read it. And, quite frankly, that is condescending and dismissive as all hell and is not good for the game at all. (especially if GW is going to do as they claimed they would and listen to player feedback as they adjust armies going forward)
Because apparently reading the thread you post in is hard. I'm probably gonna have to keep that quote tabbed for awhile while going through dakka, aren't I?
Remember everyone, when you lose it's because your army is underpowered, but when other people lose it's cause they're bad at the game!
Who was the EASIEST faction to play and to excel at last edition without having to invest much time/effort into the army? your answer is TAU. So unfortunately that faction is infested with players either who just joined and picked tau because it was relatively cheap/easy to play and a bunch of players who are used to blasting opponents off the table before turn 3.
So yes my argument is that this is why the Tau faction is doing so badly right now. Am I saying every Tau player is like that? Nope, and you knew that from the start you just choose to come in and post that little tidbit.
I have looked over the Tau codex a fair bit and I can say that they got hit with the nerf hammer pretty hard, however they also got some pretty nifty buffs on other units, Commanders now are ridiculous as are a couple of other units. the biggest problem I see right now is that the Riptide and Stormsurge are no longer auto-includes and that is really playing havoc with most players lists, especially since every Tau Player I went against tended to field 3 of the things.
Yeah but I said earlier in the thread people are using non 7th edition lists. Thanks you told us what anyone could that riptides and stormsurges aren't going to win any tournament. You know who figured that out before you? Well for one me. And before me the Tau tournament players. In the Caledonian most of the Tau players didn't take any riptides or stormsurges and got wrecked anyways even bringing lots of "cheese" like drones which were swept aside easily. Read the entire thread please odds are if you come in with a big point 99% of the times its been answered. This is not Tau player failing to adapt. We're seeing reports of Tau lists that don't use any of the old 7th staples. The only thing that has made any dent is commander spam which shouldn't be a thing we have to do to be viable army.
Who was the EASIEST faction to play and to excel at last edition without having to invest much time/effort into the army? your answer is TAU. So unfortunately that faction is infested with players either who just joined and picked tau because it was relatively cheap/easy to play and a bunch of players who are used to blasting opponents off the table before turn 3.
Said he, completely ignoring that those players often had other armies that were not so easy. Ignoring, too, the Tau playerbase that played Tau since its inception. Ignoreth he, those who collected solely in 7th, and played for the first time in 8th. Yet further, he ignored the upstart player who only knew 8th, and yet found already the imbalance of the Tau.
Your limited field of experience and understanding of playerbases and statistics, and your lack of a logical framework within which to operate is showing.
Oh yeah I got distracted and forgot to actually post results
Deathguard vs T'au, Deathguard victory
Deathguard vs Ynarri, Ynarri victory
Deathguard vs Sisters of Battle, Deathguard victory (I got lucky with this one)
The nids player had no answer to Magnus or my Deimos Vindicators. He hasn't had much opportunity to play 8th yet so I'm not sure if his list wasn't up to snuff or if Tyranids just have a big problem with high toughness high damage models (I don't know anything about nids so I couldn't critique his list personally).
SilverAlien wrote: I do find it kinda funny how people constantly raise the requirements.
People look at mathhammer and rules interaction and start worrying T'au aren't very good and AM are far too good, and we are told those have nothing to do with the game, mathhammer means nothing, wait till people actually play etc.
Then people do and well... same thing. But now we just haven't played enough, the results aren't conclusive etc.
Some people just can't accept balance issues.
yup, I took one look at SMs and then looked at my Ork codex and said Orkz would be suffering again for a 4th straight edition, i was told I was a naysayer among many other meaner versions of that, I was told I was wrong and much worse and yet I was right. Mathhammer isn't the end all be all but its a GREAT indicator and everyone who bothered to do the math knew what this edition was going to herald.
Here's hoping the new codex's balance this out.
Orks came in second in a 100 person tournament. There are good Ork lists. This poll actually has Orks trending up. They started out as the worst faction. Their win rate is improving every week.
Yup, and I predict that this trend won't last long. Everyone went from playing their Speed Freak Warbiker heavy lists to playing straight Horde style because Bikes now suck. Give it another couple months and Orkz will be bottom tier just like last edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Orkz are winning 41.74% of the time based on the numbers on the 1st page.
The only Main armies that come close to that level are
CSM: 41.89%
And
Dark Angels: 44.44%
Armies with bad ratings that are easily explained are
SM: 41.98%: They are the biggest faction by far and the unofficial starting army, so you are going to have a plethora of unskilled players here
And
Tau: 29.8% (The worst) And this is easily explainable because....wait for it.....They were the LEAST skilled army to play last edition, even more so then Eldar. No longer can Tau armies take 3 riptides and a stormsurge and brag about their win loss ratios. Now they might have to use....*Shudder* Tactics *Gasp.
So this army is going through a learning curve much harsher then most other armies are.
So based on the win/loss ratio and having read the codices I feel fairly confident in my prediction that Orkz will be bottom tier for yet another edition unless GW gets off their butts and gives us a good 8th edition codex.
It isn't really, it was small tourney and we don't even have any idea what the other lists were. I mean, I'm gratified to see the units I thought would work well seem to indeed be the cornerstone of the T'au list, but i'm also aware that plahyer may have just gotten the same impression I did and we could both be wrong in the end. So I don't really think this means much.
Then again, my knowledge of actual tournaments is minimal, so for all I know these could be the best players at the most elite tournament, and I wouldn't have a clue. Doesn't look to be the case at a glance though.
The Tau list isn't legal. A unit of Stealth Suits can buy 1 Homing Beacon, not 2
I think it's meant to be 2x Marker Drones, because even if they could take 2 Homing Beacons the squad would cost 145pts, not 135.
However, 135 is the cost of a Controller/2x Marker Drone/Homing Beacon Burst Stealth unit.
The Tau list isn't legal. A unit of Stealth Suits can buy 1 Homing Beacon, not 2
I think it's meant to be 2x Marker Drones, because even if they could take 2 Homing Beacons the squad would cost 145pts, not 135.
However, 135 is the cost of a Controller/2x Marker Drone/Homing Beacon Burst Stealth unit.
Nope, look at the second set of stealth suits they have a marker drone as well as two homing beacons.
What would he even want to homing beacons for on one guy anyways? Also good to see some rep. This means two Tau second places at small tournaments now. I would like to have known his competition though. From the sounds of the write up the flyer spam list was taken down.
Hopefully I'll add to that this weekend at my first ever local tournament. Then again I am up against a list with 3 knights, 3 assassins, gulliman, some primaris guys. As well as a necron list running two necron gauss pylons.
I think I can take the knight list with my Ta'unar. However the Gauss pylon list will prove harder I actually think taking shield drones might be helpful since he might try directly targeting them and if I have a few that get targeted directly they will get their save. I have a relative game plan in mind but it revolves on terrain placement.
Gamgee wrote: Hopefully I'll add to that this weekend at my first ever local tournament. Then again I am up against a list with 3 knights, 3 assassins, gulliman, some primaris guys. As well as a necron list running two necron gauss pylons.
I think I can take the knight list with my Ta'unar. However the Gauss pylon list will prove harder I actually think taking shield drones might be helpful since he might try directly targeting them and if I have a few that get targeted directly they will get their save. I have a relative game plan in mind but it revolves on terrain placement.
The Pylon's gonna be a bitch, do you have anything to screen your DZ with? Kroot? I know it can deep strike.
No kroot and I can't proxy models unless they look similar. I am bringng tons of firewarriors and pathfinders to act as my screen instead. As well as one quad fusion commander and two stealth teams of 3 each one with a drone controller.
My working list so far. Very limited in what models I can take since I used to proxy Kroot with my friends now I can't do that. I was always considering throwing some Ion Rifles on the pathfinders just to add some shock factor.
Spoiler:
1152 Ta'unar with fusion erradicators and pulse ordinance
How are Knights at nearly 50/50? I have watched/participated in 14 games, and seen Knights lose 1 of those. They have tabled their opponent in the other 13.
Eldar v.s Space Wolves = Eldar win
Ynnari v.s Eldar = Ynnari win
Ynnari v.s Iron Warriors = Ynnari win
Ynnari v.s Astra Millitarum = Astra Militarum win
Thousand Sons v.s Dark Eldar = Thousand Sons win
Slaanesh Daemons/CSM v.s Astra Millitarum = Slaanesh win
So far I've had pretty decent success rates, having only narrowly lost one game against a conscript/bullgryn guard list. All my other games have ended by about turn 3, with my opponent's army in pretty bad shape. I've noticed getting first turn is a massive deal in 8th, at least against the people I've played, but that may be partly because I've mostly been using pretty shooty armies, and the Slaanesh list was pretty heavy on seekers, and they were so fast I was able to get tons of charges off turn 1.
Army Name: Obvious
Win Percentage (95% CI): This means the range given contains the real win percentage with a 95% likelihood.
Score: Number of armies to which this army is statistically superior
Change Since Last Time: Change in Score
Tier: Obvious
Feel free to put this in the summary post if you want to.
I think on facebook (or some social media) one of the developers was like "we really under tuned and overestimated some weapons" but he wasn't replying to any one faction in particular as far as I can tell. Although I found this quote posted on ATT so perhaps it was about Tau. I sure hope so. Understatement of the year man.
djones520 wrote: How are Knights at nearly 50/50? I have watched/participated in 14 games, and seen Knights lose 1 of those. They have tabled their opponent in the other 13.
As someone who runs a superheavy tank company (knights on tracks in this edition), the people your Knight player must be playing are either bad at the game, bad at list-building, or don't care enough to try to win.
Well my Ta'unar is going to be killing about... 1.75 knights a turn and he only brought three plus some assassins. So... lol. Once I don't have that however I'm unsure how I'll win. I guess Y'vahrah and fusion suit spam.
Gamgee wrote: Well my Ta'unar is going to be killing about... 1.75 knights a turn and he only brought three plus some assassins. So... lol. Once I don't have that however I'm unsure how I'll win. I guess Y'vahrah and fusion suit spam.
Gamgee wrote: Well my Ta'unar is going to be killing about... 1.75 knights a turn and he only brought three plus some assassins. So... lol. Once I don't have that however I'm unsure how I'll win. I guess Y'vahrah and fusion suit spam.
Why wouldn't you have that?
They are allowing forgeworld for now, but once they start using ITC again the Ta'unar will be banned as it is above 31 power level. If I can get it for some casual games all is well but the tournaments will be moving away from big FW models.
djones520 wrote: How are Knights at nearly 50/50? I have watched/participated in 14 games, and seen Knights lose 1 of those. They have tabled their opponent in the other 13.
Since they became an army, Knight games have always been determined pretty much solely by the other player's list. Does the other player have enough anti-tank to kill the Knights? If so, the other player generally wins. If not, the Knight player generally wins. This still seems to hold true in 8th, though it has been mitigated a bit by the change to objectives. Since objectives are held by models and not units, Knights kinda suck at taking objectives now. Between that and how traditional anti-tank weapons have just gotten better, I'm not surprised Knights are holding somewhere around 50/50.
Gamgee wrote: Well my Ta'unar is going to be killing about... 1.75 knights a turn and he only brought three plus some assassins. So... lol. Once I don't have that however I'm unsure how I'll win. I guess Y'vahrah and fusion suit spam.
Why wouldn't you have that?
They are allowing forgeworld for now, but once they start using ITC again the Ta'unar will be banned as it is above 31 power level. If I can get it for some casual games all is well but the tournaments will be moving away from big FW models.
Womp womp.
I love when 'house rules' aren't 'house' at all, and when they hurt the game. That's always fun.
Gamgee wrote: Well my Ta'unar is going to be killing about... 1.75 knights a turn and he only brought three plus some assassins. So... lol. Once I don't have that however I'm unsure how I'll win. I guess Y'vahrah and fusion suit spam.
Why wouldn't you have that?
They are allowing forgeworld for now, but once they start using ITC again the Ta'unar will be banned as it is above 31 power level. If I can get it for some casual games all is well but the tournaments will be moving away from big FW models.
Gamgee wrote: Well my Ta'unar is going to be killing about... 1.75 knights a turn and he only brought three plus some assassins. So... lol. Once I don't have that however I'm unsure how I'll win. I guess Y'vahrah and fusion suit spam.
Why wouldn't you have that?
They are allowing forgeworld for now, but once they start using ITC again the Ta'unar will be banned as it is above 31 power level. If I can get it for some casual games all is well but the tournaments will be moving away from big FW models.
Tigershark AX-1-0 is PL30
Only if FW let's it just fire all its guns as it is a big disadvantage otherwise. I don't know why I have to pick and choose which guns to fire each round so dumb especially when it's so expensive.
Chaos vs Orks - Chaos Win
Chaos vs Necron - Chaos Win
Chaos vs SW - SW Win
Chaos vs GK - Chaos Win
I am surprised by chaos being that low since I have had really good success with them compared to last edition where I really struggled. My loss vs SW was mostly due to poor objective draws and my opponent accidentally cheating with his long fangs.
Orks and Tau finished 1 & 2 in that tournament, discount it if you want, but in the last two tournaments we've seen, Orks were numbers 2 & 1.
Dakka Dakka: Oh it's an outlier, these armies are actually bad, the data proves it!
Space Marines have a very poor win percentage in the data.
Dakka Dakka: MAREEN PLAYERZ BAD WAREZ MY PLAZTIC SISTERZZZ!!11 L2P MEREENS!! GIT GUD GG WP KTHX BEIIII"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
One thing is certain, parts of the playtesting process for the game didn’t account for certain variables, as noticed by the playtesting tournament community moving quickly to change missions and going first mechanics, even after initial calls for no changes when the hype train was at full steam.
I agree with this analysis. Some of the meta is being driven by ITC's changes to the rules that happened without a vote.
Marmatag wrote: Orks and Tau finished 1 & 2 in that tournament, discount it if you want, but in the last two tournaments we've seen, Orks were numbers 2 & 1.
Dakka Dakka: Oh it's an outlier, these armies are actually bad, the data proves it!
Space Marines have a very poor win percentage in the data.
Dakka Dakka: MAREEN PLAYERZ BAD WAREZ MY PLAZTIC SISTERZZZ!!11 L2P MEREENS!! GIT GUD GG WP KTHX BEIIII
I don't think anyone discounted the idea orks had viable builds, but the bigger issue was they only have 1-2 still, and even those 1-2 look like they may get outperformed by similar builds from other armies. I think orks placing as high as they do currently has a lot to do with most ork players having a lot of boys painted already.
It's funny people are whining about others saying Marine players are unskilled when not too long ago in this thread the Ork w/l ratio was explained by several people as Ork players innately having no skill.
Melissia wrote: It's funny people are whining about others saying Marine players are unskilled when not too long ago in this thread the Ork w/l ratio was explained by several people as Ork players innately having no skill.
I don't think it's the same people. Each army has it's own base of people who think they are the only skilled players in the world...
Heh. I've been saying Tau are in a bad place for a while now. I don't really understand why, because I haven't really taken a look at the Tau books even before this edition (the army does not interest me). But their W/L rate is way off of what I'd expect with a normal distribution, meaning more likely than not there's something going on with the rules.
Melissia wrote: It's funny people are whining about others saying Marine players are unskilled when not too long ago in this thread the Ork w/l ratio was explained by several people as Ork players innately having no skill.
In my experience, both these statements are true; Ork players play far more for fun (hence the Joyful Waaaghs, talking like an Ork, etc.) than to win, hence the seeming lack of tactical prowess; and the majority of Space Marine players I've met are young and inexperienced, very few stay with a pure Space Marine army (branching out into one of the chapters with their own Codex, Admech, Knights, Guard and even Xenos factions) and so Space Marines are brought down in skill on average.
This is not true everywhere but it is true where I come from.
(Incidently, what I've said about both Ork players and Space Marine players applies to CSM players too: it is again one of the factions that a lot of players start off with (Branching out into one of the named Legions, R&H, Daemons, etc.) and quite alot of the cc orientated CSM armies play far more for fun rather than to win. This applied to me when I was younger, I would ignore objectives and go for the kill in the name of the Blood God, but since then I've branched out into all areas of chaos and I'm far more tactical in games rather than just going for the kill, though I lapse sometimes.)
Playing with armies that are squishy, with no immortal units, like orks (that also have the worst aim in 40k), harlequins or dark eldar is very difficult. You have to be skilled if you want to win with orks, even with a green tide plus buffs because if you play brainless you won't win. Simple.
Playing in 7th edition with armies like tau, eldar, SM or imperial knights (the most unskilled army in 40k) meant that you may make some mistakes that your chances to win the game are basically the same.
Now that eldar, tau or SM are not as overpowered as they were a few months ago, we see that they lose pretty bad a lot of games, which is something new for them. Orks have experienced a lot of losses in 8th edition according to the users' experience shown in the table but with 7th edition rules the number of losses would have been much higher.
Orks codex in 8th edition is pretty bad, don't pretend it's competitve at last, it's probably worse now and we were already among the bottom tiers. But orks players learnt from 7th edition how to play their units. Some armies were so brainless that now that they're not overpowered anymore their players need some experience to be competitive again.
Melissia wrote: Deliberately playing in a fun way is a choice though. Being bad is an attribute that most people wouldn't choose.
Yet if you never try to play in a competitive way, only in a fun way, then you will never "git gud", as the saying goes. Another saying fits what I'm saying also: "practice makes perfect" and certainly the best players are the ones who spend along time playing competitively until they are able to instinctively make tactical decision.
Melissia wrote: Heh. I've been saying Tau are in a bad place for a while now. I don't really understand why, because I haven't really taken a look at the Tau books even before this edition (the army does not interest me). But their W/L rate is way off of what I'd expect with a normal distribution, meaning more likely than not there's something going on with the rules.
It's a complicated situation, and I don't have a great grasp on it myself, but I'll get some of it wrong, piss some people off, and generally try to speculate
Looking at the index:
I feel like everything got super expensive, and didn't really get a lot of a boost out of becoming so. I glanced at the index when it first dropped, and I spent some time looking at it now based upon the list Katherine posted a couple pages back, and Fire Warrior spam literally seems like the best option in a codex that was previously difficult to make a bad build for, and based upon the discussion with the Tau player below, that's arguably still overpriced, particularly when I look at stuff in other armies like Scions. I have 40 scions on my desk right now I'm looking to paint. I want them to be as good as anyone, but man, they're seriously, seriously underpriced for what they do. They should be at least 10-11 points base, and fire warriors should be, like, 6-7.
Now, looking at history, Tau weren't a very common army around the 4th/5th ed era. At least, not around here. They were kind of a strange out-of-place thing that existed in the universe but never really fit in there. There was maybe one player around my area, and then the guy I knew who played Eldar got into it in 5th. I don't know if that's representative, but I'm guessing so. They had an old book, a lot of it didn't work any more. It wasn't alluring to start an army with.
Then the power codex dropped in 7th. I'm gonna guess that a lot of it is legitimately substandard players who bandwagoned about this time. I'm a decent player, but by no means a great player, and I have no shame in saying that's when said TT army came from. We even called ourselves "The Bandwagon of Tomorrow", poking fun at how it became the new hotness.
So now fastforward to now and suddenly they're not so good anymore. Thus, there's a lot of players out there that were depending upon that power curve that suddenly had the bottom drop out beneath them. I'd imagine the ones who are mostly unaffected by it in their games are the old ones who were in the army since 4th/5th. I don't honestly know how I'd even do with them nowadays, since I ran a battlesuit spam list with some heavy support. GW in their book design seems to maintain a very "what was first shall now be last, and what was last shall now be first" approach to army design that I've noticed over the years with a handful of exceptions. Maybe it keeps the most competitive players continually buying new stuff?
I think a similar thing happened to GK when their Scooty Puff Junior codex dropped that took away half their toys and separated the Inquisition stuff. Probably good for you as a Sisters player though I guess because you actually got to start taking that stuff again though.
I never took inquisition stuff along with my Sisters. The only time I did anything other than a purist army was sisters/guard, which was more a fluffy "holy crusade" list than anything else.
Dakka Dakka: MAREEN PLAYERZ BAD WAREZ MY PLAZTIC SISTERZZZ!!11 L2P MEREENS!! GIT GUD GG WP KTHX BEIIII"
As we pointed out earlier, separating Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines from their special-character-including counterparts makes a big difference.
If we sorted out the Guard lists that have Pask, and the Guard Lists that have Harker, and the Guard lists that have neither, we'd probably see a fairly noticeable decrease in wins by the "neither" category,
And more drastic, if we called Sisters of Battle using Saint Celestine "Order of Our Martyred Lady" and Sisters of Battle not using Celestine "Sisters of Battle". [There'd also probably be 0 games played without Celestine, because she's that essential to our army as written.]
I'm still working out the (apparently extensive) kinks to my army list while desperately trying to keep all 12 of my Windriders in the list (that have been a part of my core army since 4E).
Against Space marine armies with even a handful of Rhino/Razorbacks or Dreads, I just do not have enough weapons in the list that do enough damage, despite having more actual shots than my tourney winning 7E lists.
A big take away for me is that you can't make an "all comers" list in 8E without several D6 damage weapons that can shoot targets turn 1. Also, my lists suffers from always going last - which SUCKS. Due to the Morale rules, Aeldari really don't want big units and are encouraged to run MSU, so I will almost always have more drops than my opponent.
Also, what I'm finding interesting is the lack of complaints from CSM players: The bottom three armies in these results are Tau, then CSM, then Orks, yet we have complaints from the 1st and 3rd place but not the 2nd. We all remember how vocal we CSM players were back in 7th ed about our terrible codex yet this edition the only complaints from CSM players have been about the loss of some fluffy items, no complaints about the rules (except MagicJuggler complaining about summoning but again that was about his fluffy Word Bearers army).
I wonder how the CSM results slot into the idea that such bad results could only be because the rules are bad... (honest query since I'm content with the chaos rules, though I am purely playing WE/Khorne Daemons at the moment)
The earliest thread I remember about 8th that got more than ten pages was about CSM players complaining that power levels screwed them over (and tbh they were probably right, power levels are a crap system).
So, I have a CSM army. I just don't play it a whole lot.
The ability to run Magnus basically offsets a lot. He's very, very, very, very, very strong. Probably the strongest single model in the game and he's cheap!
Additionally, CSM got the best psychic powers. Warptime is redundacrunk good. You can deep strike your terminators with a sorcerer and warptime them. With a warp charge value of 6, you're now moving them into guaranteed charge range, and also, into melta range, if you're using combi-melta. That is a beautiful alpha strike.
A lot of the units are actually scary and overall quality. The challenge is figuring out how to synergize it all together into a cohesive vision for a list. Auto-take units aren't auto-take anymore. Daemon princes are vulnerable. You need an effective way to protect / bubble wrap them.
I feel like there's a ton of potential here, i just haven't had the patience or time to do it, since i'm focusing on GK right now.
Melissia wrote: The earliest thread I remember about 8th that got more than ten pages was about CSM players complaining that power levels screwed them over (and tbh they were probably right, power levels are a crap system).
Which is why I've been trying to tell people Power Levels were never meant to be used if you didn't have to. What exactly was this persons complaint about PLs? I must have missed that thread.
Melissia wrote: The earliest thread I remember about 8th that got more than ten pages was about CSM players complaining that power levels screwed them over (and tbh they were probably right, power levels are a crap system).
Which is why I've been trying to tell people Power Levels were never meant to be used if you didn't have to. What exactly was this persons complaint about PLs? I must have missed that thread.
Was multiple people. They were arguing CSM units were given power levels that were too large for their actual effectiveness. I don't remember the exact details, it was literally around release date or earlier.
Galef wrote: You can add another Eldar lose to the tally
I'm still working out the (apparently extensive) kinks to my army list while desperately trying to keep all 12 of my Windriders in the list (that have been a part of my core army since 4E).
Against Space marine armies with even a handful of Rhino/Razorbacks or Dreads, I just do not have enough weapons in the list that do enough damage, despite having more actual shots than my tourney winning 7E lists.
A big take away for me is that you can't make an "all comers" list in 8E without several D6 damage weapons that can shoot targets turn 1. Also, my lists suffers from always going last - which SUCKS. Due to the Morale rules, Aeldari really don't want big units and are encouraged to run MSU, so I will almost always have more drops than my opponent.
-
How many drops do you have?
My Guard has 13 drops at 2000, and one of those is a Shadowsword. My Sisters running MSU Dominions are at 10-11 drops, making fair use of doubling-up in transports.
Marmatag wrote: So, I have a CSM army. I just don't play it a whole lot.
The ability to run Magnus basically offsets a lot. He's very, very, very, very, very strong. Probably the strongest single model in the game and he's cheap!
Additionally, CSM got the best psychic powers. Warptime is redundacrunk good. You can deep strike your terminators with a sorcerer and warptime them. With a warp charge value of 6, you're now moving them into guaranteed charge range, and also, into melta range, if you're using combi-melta. That is a beautiful alpha strike.
A lot of the units are actually scary and overall quality. The challenge is figuring out how to synergize it all together into a cohesive vision for a list.
So the problem with the CSM army is that the rules are still new and people are still trying to figure out the best synergies? I agree with this completely. This is also why I'm not so quick to jump onto the band wagon that Tau and Orks have been screwed to the high heavens.
(Also, just an extra bit of information, CSM started out pretty average with the W/L ratio and are slowly getting worse whilst Orks started out VERY badly and are slowly getting better, Tau on the other hand started out average, plumeted and are now slowly getting better. Make of that what you will.)
Melissia wrote: The earliest thread I remember about 8th that got more than ten pages was about CSM players complaining that power levels screwed them over (and tbh they were probably right, power levels are a crap system).
Which is why I've been trying to tell people Power Levels were never meant to be used if you didn't have to. What exactly was this persons complaint about PLs? I must have missed that thread.
Was multiple people. They were arguing CSM units were given power levels that were too large for their actual effectiveness. I don't remember the exact details, it was literally around release date or earlier.
Probably because a lot of base CSM units are below average with their basic gear and only get better when you kit them out fully. Lesson is don't play Power Levels. I don't understand why some people won't play points since it's clearly more balanced.
Melissia wrote: The earliest thread I remember about 8th that got more than ten pages was about CSM players complaining that power levels screwed them over (and tbh they were probably right, power levels are a crap system).
Which is why I've been trying to tell people Power Levels were never meant to be used if you didn't have to. What exactly was this persons complaint about PLs? I must have missed that thread.
The complaint was thus: a knight of the CSM variety was more expensive (by quite a lot) than the almost exact replica in the SM book. And this was true. It is because while a CSM knight basically comes packing every gun they've managed to strap to it as a base, the SM one has a very wide scope of armament, ranging from fairly cheap to the equivalent of the CSM one. Since the power level is an average of the unit's capabilities, the shoddy options of the SM gear means its power level is dragged down, while the CSM one's low and high point are basically both in the high tier.
So it showed us - to no one's real surprise - that if you want to min-max, it's very easy to game the system of power levels, by bringing the best gun on something that has a wide variety of power in its guns, because you'll only be paying the middle ground of its best and worst gun in power levels.
Also the reason why an Onager is PL6 when it should proooooobably be 7 and a bit.
I feel a lot of people are still missing the complaints most of the more reasonable Tau players are saying; it is not the case that they are unusably bad, but the internal balance is so poor there is no reason to take anything but slight variations to a 'boring' list. Even in the recent GT 2nd place it followed the same standard pattern: Commanders, Infantry, Stealth Suits, and Drones with the slight variation being the Crisis Suits. Tau have quite a number of units which are either fun to play or cool looking, but in so doing you are actively choosing to take a worse version of the core units. Unless you are exclusively playing to win games, you are punished for variety. I also expect complaints to start to appear from the players playing against Tau for the same reasons people complained about playing against flyrant lists last edition.
Purifier wrote:The complaint was thus: a knight of the CSM variety was more expensive (by quite a lot) than the almost exact replica in the SM book. And this was true. It is because while a CSM knight basically comes packing every gun they've managed to strap to it as a base, the SM one has a very wide scope of armament, ranging from fairly cheap to the equivalent of the CSM one. Since the power level is an average of the unit's capabilities, the shoddy options of the SM gear means its power level is dragged down, while the CSM one's low and high point are basically both in the high tier.
So it showed us - to no one's real surprise - that if you want to min-max, it's very easy to game the system of power levels, by bringing the best gun on something that has a wide variety of power in its guns, because you'll only be paying the middle ground of its best and worst gun in power levels.
Also the reason why an Onager is PL6 when it should proooooobably be 7 and a bit.
Which shouldn't really be a problem unless your playing a competitive game using PL and if you are then your kind of asking for problems.
Rockfish wrote:I also expect complaints to start to appear from the players playing against Tau for the same reasons people complained about playing against flyrant lists last edition.
That you can't defeat them unless you've brought anti-air units? I understand what your trying to say, both armies only had one competitive build but the problem with the flyrant build was not because it was competitive but because it was OP and so glaringly better than anything else tyranids had. Tau are in a similar state with only a few competitive builds (according to Tau players) but the Tau builds aren't OP, so no complaint from players playing Tau, and they aren't as restrictive as the Flyrant builds, so you'd think less complaints from Tau players. Also the Tau index is no where near as trash as the Nids used to be.
Purifier wrote:The complaint was thus: a knight of the CSM variety was more expensive (by quite a lot) than the almost exact replica in the SM book. And this was true. It is because while a CSM knight basically comes packing every gun they've managed to strap to it as a base, the SM one has a very wide scope of armament, ranging from fairly cheap to the equivalent of the CSM one. Since the power level is an average of the unit's capabilities, the shoddy options of the SM gear means its power level is dragged down, while the CSM one's low and high point are basically both in the high tier.
So it showed us - to no one's real surprise - that if you want to min-max, it's very easy to game the system of power levels, by bringing the best gun on something that has a wide variety of power in its guns, because you'll only be paying the middle ground of its best and worst gun in power levels.
Also the reason why an Onager is PL6 when it should proooooobably be 7 and a bit.
Which shouldn't really be a problem unless your playing a competitive game using PL and if you are then your kind of asking for problems.
Rockfish wrote:I also expect complaints to start to appear from the players playing against Tau for the same reasons people complained about playing against flyrant lists last edition.
That you can't defeat them unless you've brought anti-air units? I understand what your trying to say, both armies only had one competitive build but the problem with the flyrant build was not because it was competitive but because it was OP and so glaringly better than anything else tyranids had. Tau are in a similar state with only a few competitive builds (according to Tau players) but the Tau builds aren't OP, so no complaint from players playing Tau, and they aren't as restrictive as the Flyrant builds, so you'd think less complaints from Tau players. Also the Tau index is no where near as trash as the Nids used to be.
I guess I kinda used the wrong example, much much less extreme than that, but we have already had people bitch about OP drones/commander lists where the commanders are unkillable and those are kind of lists which people are gonna bring to tournaments.
Rockfish wrote: I guess I kinda used the wrong example, much much less extreme than that, but we have already had people bitch about OP drones/commander lists where the commanders are unkillable and those are kind of lists which people are gonna bring to tournaments.
And people whine when things aren't easy, because they can't sit back and shoot Commanders from their unmoving gunline they think that Commanders are OP. I've played against the supposedly OP commanders and they are good units certainly but no where near OP. People will scream "OP unit" or "my army is unusable" far too quickly, the only reason Orks, Nids, CSM and DE were allowed to be called unusable is because they had been trying for a good list for many years, not a couple of months.
The ability to run Magnus basically offsets a lot. He's very, very, very, very, very strong. Probably the strongest single model in the game
Haaaave you met Girlyman?
Haha yes i have both models. Guilliman is strong, but it's only because of his bubble. The things around Guilliman die just as fast as when he's there or not. Azrael is actually better IMHO, because he gives a 4++ and allows you to reroll hits. But Guilliman is quite good, too.
On Tau being weak some guy at my local store has been murdering players I guess he tabled a AM player. I know he ran the a drop team of battle suits with lots of burst cannons to clear out the Conscripts and a fusion drop team to cripple Pask. my buddy back in Michigan is a "power gamer" and told me he is working out the tau. I guess they play a lot different then they used to now.
Space marine players please please try bringing a Storm raven vs hordes. Its list should be lascannons, melta and the bolters. We call it the AC130. do to it not needing fire arc and hits on full BS that thing is pure murder.
Legio_xx wrote: On Tau being weak some guy at my local store has been murdering players I guess he tabled a AM player. I know he ran the a drop team of battle suits with lots of burst cannons to clear out the Conscripts and a fusion drop team to cripple Pask. my buddy back in Michigan is a "power gamer" and told me he is working out the tau. I guess they play a lot different then they used to now.
Space marine players please please try bringing a Storm raven vs hordes. Its list should be lascannons, melta and the bolters. We call it the AC130. do to it not needing fire arc and hits on full BS that thing is pure murder.
The Forgeworld Tau unit, i've said this a million times, is nasty as it gets. It is outstanding at eliminating hordes - 3D6 heavy flamer - has an 18" fly - and can Nova Charge - it also has 14 wounds, 7 toughness, and i think a 2+. It is beyond beast, and it's a fast attack. same model as the riptide, so you probably already have 3.
If you can clear a path to the tanks, there are numerous suits that drop in and deal stronger than melta damage on a better gun platform, with drones.
I'm not saying Tau are top tier or anything, but there are some ridiculously good tools in the arsenal.
As for the storm raven, i just use assault cannons on mine. Lascannons are so expensive, and I need bodies badly. But i play GK.
mrhappyface wrote: Also, what I'm finding interesting is the lack of complaints from CSM players: The bottom three armies in these results are Tau, then CSM, then Orks, yet we have complaints from the 1st and 3rd place but not the 2nd. We all remember how vocal we CSM players were back in 7th ed about our terrible codex yet this edition the only complaints from CSM players have been about the loss of some fluffy items, no complaints about the rules (except MagicJuggler complaining about summoning but again that was about his fluffy Word Bearers army).
I wonder how the CSM results slot into the idea that such bad results could only be because the rules are bad... (honest query since I'm content with the chaos rules, though I am purely playing WE/Khorne Daemons at the moment)
CSM is at its best with specific Legion synergies. Just look at how good Thousand Sons and World Eaters are doing; I suspect if there were more games we'd see Emperor's Children and Black Legion much further up the charts than baseline CSM as well.
Marmatag wrote: So, I have a CSM army. I just don't play it a whole lot.
The ability to run Magnus basically offsets a lot. He's very, very, very, very, very strong. Probably the strongest single model in the game and he's cheap!
Additionally, CSM got the best psychic powers. Warptime is redundacrunk good. You can deep strike your terminators with a sorcerer and warptime them. With a warp charge value of 6, you're now moving them into guaranteed charge range, and also, into melta range, if you're using combi-melta. That is a beautiful alpha strike.
A lot of the units are actually scary and overall quality. The challenge is figuring out how to synergize it all together into a cohesive vision for a list.
So the problem with the CSM army is that the rules are still new and people are still trying to figure out the best synergies? I agree with this completely. This is also why I'm not so quick to jump onto the band wagon that Tau and Orks have been screwed to the high heavens.
(Also, just an extra bit of information, CSM started out pretty average with the W/L ratio and are slowly getting worse whilst Orks started out VERY badly and are slowly getting better, Tau on the other hand started out average, plumeted and are now slowly getting better. Make of that what you will.)
At least that's true for me. CSM seems to be the most changed codex out of all of them. I will openly admit i am not the best CSM player. My experience has been that Tau and Orks are good. But it's fundamentally different from 7th.
I've noticed what you see as well - that factions that started out in the gutter have dramatically improved in win rate. Going from 20% wins to 40% wins shows improvement. That's a fact.
A tip for those that love melee-heavy armies: bring some good shooting. I think only Tyranids can get off without it because they can bring their units quite close to the enemy in 1 turn.
I think it's because they lost all that formation-based crap they had, and many of the players are lost without it.
I have come to this conclusion by watching Tau players' games. There was one who picked up Tau in 7e and spent a considerable amount of prep time complaining about the removal of formations, and he was beaten by the Ork player facing him. But there was another who didn't actually play Tau and was borrowing his friend's army to try it out, who won one game and pulled it close in another against a considerably more experienced player.
I think this is pretty much correct. People are used to playing Tau as an elite force, when the game has now shifted to infantry with elite/heavy support.
Personally I was excited enough by the new Tau to pick up a new army after selling off my old one! They seem much more interesting now,
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and Tau's key strength in 8th seems to me to be mobility, which is what distinguished them from guard.
The Tau list isn't legal. A unit of Stealth Suits can buy 1 Homing Beacon, not 2
I think it's meant to be 2x Marker Drones, because even if they could take 2 Homing Beacons the squad would cost 145pts, not 135. However, 135 is the cost of a Controller/2x Marker Drone/Homing Beacon Burst Stealth unit.
Nope, look at the second set of stealth suits they have a marker drone as well as two homing beacons.
That would just be a copy-paste error. The person re-writing the list down probably got it wrong the first time they wrote it in, saw that the same unit appeared again and so just copy-pasted the first entry they'd done.
Of course, it could be the player cheated with each unit twice - first by taking 2 homing beacons and the second by not paying the correct points cost - but the fact is it's more likely that they took the legal composition of Controller/Homing Beacon/2x Marker Drone that costs exactly 135pts.
A tip for those that love melee-heavy armies: bring some good shooting. I think only Tyranids can get off without it because they can bring their units quite close to the enemy in 1 turn.
*looks at my Slaanesh Daemons* ...what good shooting D:
Yes, yes I know, ally in CSMs or Renegades. Or just get in their faces T1 with my super-speed like you said with the Nids
At least that's true for me. CSM seems to be the most changed codex out of all of them. I will openly admit i am not the best CSM player. My experience has been that Tau and Orks are good. But it's fundamentally different from 7th.
I've noticed what you see as well - that factions that started out in the gutter have dramatically improved in win rate. Going from 20% wins to 40% wins shows improvement. That's a fact.
realistically the Ork codex didn't change that drastically at all. The game rules changed but our codex remained crap. The difference is that our best units are now trash (Except Tankbustas) and our troops are slightly better....that is about it.
Tau on the other hand? Its funny how I got blasted for my comment and then a bunch of others pointed out exactly what I said. Tau went from being able to field 3 riptides and be competitive against most lists, to not being able to field a couple of units and auto-compete and I think that more then anything is throwing them through a loop. Ironically I made my prediction that they would figure out how to play their new codex and rebound and with a day I was proven right LOL they went up drastically in W/L ratio today alone.
Dakka Dakka: MAREEN PLAYERZ BAD WAREZ MY PLAZTIC SISTERZZZ!!11 L2P MEREENS!! GIT GUD GG WP KTHX BEIIII"
As we pointed out earlier, separating Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines from their special-character-including counterparts makes a big difference.
If we sorted out the Guard lists that have Pask, and the Guard Lists that have Harker, and the Guard lists that have neither, we'd probably see a fairly noticeable decrease in wins by the "neither" category,
And more drastic, if we called Sisters of Battle using Saint Celestine "Order of Our Martyred Lady" and Sisters of Battle not using Celestine "Sisters of Battle". [There'd also probably be 0 games played without Celestine, because she's that essential to our army as written.]
I'm now curious how many people are playing Mars due to Cawl, as Cawl is in a similar place for admech. He isn't quite as essential as Celestine from what I can tell, but he is close to an autotake.
Dakka Dakka: MAREEN PLAYERZ BAD WAREZ MY PLAZTIC SISTERZZZ!!11 L2P MEREENS!! GIT GUD GG WP KTHX BEIIII"
As we pointed out earlier, separating Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines from their special-character-including counterparts makes a big difference.
If we sorted out the Guard lists that have Pask, and the Guard Lists that have Harker, and the Guard lists that have neither, we'd probably see a fairly noticeable decrease in wins by the "neither" category,
And more drastic, if we called Sisters of Battle using Saint Celestine "Order of Our Martyred Lady" and Sisters of Battle not using Celestine "Sisters of Battle". [There'd also probably be 0 games played without Celestine, because she's that essential to our army as written.]
These are not at all the same thing, and i'm not going to relive this argument over and over again. I'll just go with the separation that every major tournament, as well as games workshop, has defined by the armies. You can do what you want. I will never agree that "The difference between guard with Pask and guard without Pask, is the same as the difference between Space Wolves and Generic Space Marines."
another victory for chaos!
Spamming smite with malefic lords is nasty as hell. Berzrkers are THE best melee unit in the game (given their cost): mix it and you are set
Galef wrote: You can add another Eldar lose to the tally
I'm still working out the (apparently extensive) kinks to my army list while desperately trying to keep all 12 of my Windriders in the list (that have been a part of my core army since 4E).
Against Space marine armies with even a handful of Rhino/Razorbacks or Dreads, I just do not have enough weapons in the list that do enough damage, despite having more actual shots than my tourney winning 7E lists.
A big take away for me is that you can't make an "all comers" list in 8E without several D6 damage weapons that can shoot targets turn 1. Also, my lists suffers from always going last - which SUCKS. Due to the Morale rules, Aeldari really don't want big units and are encouraged to run MSU, so I will almost always have more drops than my opponent.
-
Fortunately Eldar only have about 100 ways to get D6 damage weapons lol.
I can't get my head in the game when I am teaching people apparently. I can't remember a single game I've won against someone when it was their first time playing...
Even lost to my 7 year old daughter the other day...
3-round 2k tournament, Space Marines win v. Space Marines (...so, um, not that helpful for army-comparison data?), loss v. Dark Angels, loss v. AdMech. Have decided the Spartan is cool on paper but wildly unreliable in practice; I've had it kill Magnus from 15W in one volley, but I've also had it go entire games without killing anything at all.
Imperium win, although it does help that the Eldar Scorpion got destroyed because our opponent said the Stormlord damage from the volcano cannon was 2D6 instead of D3.
Also do auras now have an effect outside vehicles? Gulliman have re rolls to everything in 9 inches whilst being escorted
Imperium win, although it does help that the Eldar Scorpion got destroyed because our opponent said the Stormlord damage from the volcano cannon was 2D6 instead of D3.
I don't understand what you mean by this, the Stormlord cannot equip the Volcano Cannon but the Volcano Cannon does have damage 2d6. Though neither the Stormlord's weapon nor the Shadowsword's Volcano cannon has a damage of d3.
Also do auras now have an effect outside vehicles? Gulliman have re rolls to everything in 9 inches whilst being escorted
Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you asking if auras work from inside the vehicle or if auras work on the vehicle or if you mean something else?
Imperium win, although it does help that the Eldar Scorpion got destroyed because our opponent said the Stormlord damage from the volcano cannon was 2D6 instead of D3.
I don't understand what you mean by this, the Stormlord cannot equip the Volcano Cannon but the Volcano Cannon does have damage 2d6. Though neither the Stormlord's weapon nor the Shadowsword's Volcano cannon has a damage of d3.
Also do auras now have an effect outside vehicles? Gulliman have re rolls to everything in 9 inches whilst being escorted
Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you asking if auras work from inside the vehicle or if auras work on the vehicle or if you mean something else?
The Baneblade variant did 2D6 damage per wound. I'm certain it's range was essentially table length.
I think Gulliman works on the Ravens. Was asking whether Gulliman aura is projected from inside the Raven (so 9 inches from the raven).
EDIT: Seems to be a Shadowsword not a Stormlord, oops
Imperium win, although it does help that the Eldar Scorpion got destroyed because our opponent said the Stormlord damage from the volcano cannon was 2D6 instead of D3.
I don't understand what you mean by this, the Stormlord cannot equip the Volcano Cannon but the Volcano Cannon does have damage 2d6. Though neither the Stormlord's weapon nor the Shadowsword's Volcano cannon has a damage of d3.
Also do auras now have an effect outside vehicles? Gulliman have re rolls to everything in 9 inches whilst being escorted
Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you asking if auras work from inside the vehicle or if auras work on the vehicle or if you mean something else?
The Baneblade variant did 2D6 damage per wound. I'm certain it's range was essentially table length.
I think Gulliman works on the Ravens. Was asking whether Gulliman aura is projected from inside the Raven (so 9 inches from the raven).
EDIT: Seems to be a Shadowsword not a Stormlord, oops
Nasty stuff
Aye, tis a Shadowsword.
Gulliman cannot ride inside a Stormraven because he isn't infantry. Also, auras don't work from inside vehicles.
I am back form my tournament and played Tau. I was the only one to bring a lord of war, and amazingly did pretty good. I actually live up to the hype folks.
First game I had a terrible deployment as Tau andf got creamed and was rolling ones for days and got owned. He used the alpha strike and crippled me hard. I simply couldn't get any sight line son him due to how the table was set up.
Ultramarines Gulliman spam (he is a big pro player too) Ultramarine vs Tau Ultramarine win. I was losing but conceded when my Ta'unar I worked on for six months was knocked over by the store owners wife and smashed into bits. Even with advantageous ground I would have been hard pressed to win without some luck his bubble is insane.
Thankfully the store owner is a pro, we found the pieces, I had it magnetised, and it was back up and ready for my third game.
Round 2 my Ta'unar was smashed to bits so I got a buy in. As I said the only permanent damage was a small crack in one of the leg joints and the store owner drilled and pinned it for me himself.
Round 3. Blood Angels Flyer Spam list. He took as much flyers as he could 6 of them. Two were heavies and one had termies and his warlord in it. The other four were lighter aircraft. He also ran a vindicare who popped my cadre fireblade. I think this guy was one of the Tau hater and thankfully I smashed him. He was kind of mad I brought a Ta'unar but I was also giving him advice on what my units were he didn't even know how important my cadre was until I pointed it out so hopefully he doesn't get salty and start moaning about how OP Tau are.
Anyways he conceded turn 3. By turn 3 only 2 flyers left and my troops weren't done shooting. I only lost a few things. Also lol I trolled him so bad by calling in my commander behind line of sight terrain and never moving him all game so he couldn't get slay the warlord and yet my commander got a single aircraft kill.
I had slay the warlord, I got the two heavy kills (mission), line breaker, first blood, and was capping two objectives. Even if he killed most of my army and Ta'unar I won so bad it wasn't funny.
I talked to the pro Ultramarines player (he travels to tournaments all over) and he agrees they hit the Tau way too hard. He thought they were mid-tier only in 7th and basically agrees with most things I say. He taught me a lot in my first 8th edition game.
So Tau 1 loss 1 win. I came in 5th of 10 but I think I could have come 3rd or even second if I had managed to play all three rounds.
Only 10 people at the game and they brought some serious cheese lists. Glad I took down the flyer guy lol. He was so mad my Ta'unar was making it's invuln saves for days.
Store owner also gave me the Deathwatch half of Deathmasq board game for free for the trouble.
The ultramarines player came in 1st place, but I actually didn't do too bad I killed almost half his army. I think with a more competitive list and better deployment I could have taken him, but I mostly went for fun.
I hate that the person with the fewest goes auto first. I like the ITC ruling to make it a roll of with a +1 to your roll.
Dark Eldar player won two games for sure and came second place. They are crazy strong now. Two ultramarines players using near mirror lists. One won 3 games and the other 2 and only lost to the other ultra.
Edit
Only Tau player in my meta to win in 8th. I feel proud.
koooaei wrote: What's making dark eldar so effective now?
A few reasons:
- Our vehicles no longer evaporate the moment someone looks at them funny.
- Dark Lances deal d6 Damage and aren't ignored by 2+ or 3+ cover all the time.
- Flyers can shoot what they want at whichever target they want (and start on the board).
- We can zoom across the board at full speed and grab objectives without impeding our firepower.
- Razorwing Flocks?
Adeptus Mechanicus - Ultramarines: Ultras win *
Spacewolves - CSM: Wolfy win
Ultramarines - CSM: Chaos took it **
CSM - CSM: well... Chaos won that one.
* to be fair, we rolled the mission where the only points are kill points, and I had made a fully mechanised Ad Mech army where almost every model was a solo unit. I had a lot of easy points for him to take out, and it was basically decided on that roll. I almost tabled him, but in my last round I had to kill his lord and a vindicare sniper, and there was no way I was gonna get both of them, so we called it there.
** In an insane amount of Maelstrom points, the game ended I believe 13-17. 13 is usually enough to win you a game, but here it wasn't even close.
AaronWilson wrote: Just the sheer amount of D6 Weaponry they can bring, paired with a medium amount of mid level dakka make them SO scary.
Also, playing against a whole army with Flicker Fields AND night shields is just very hard for anyone to handle.
Would it be that good against, say, a tyranid or ork horde? Cause what you've discribed seems to mostly be able to deal with vehicle spam.
No it wouldn't, but a list as above can have anything between 5-8 venoms, full of 5 man teams. The venoms them self throw our a good amount of dakka, paired with the guys and the splinter weaponry from razorwings the list has the potential to handle a horde. It would require solid positioning, movement and dependent on scenery for each game though.
koooaei wrote: What's making dark eldar so effective now?
They're basically Eldar +1 in several ways.
It's funny how human psychology works. Eldar have been "your army +1" for so long and it was common knowledge that such state would last for whole eternity. And it's all gone on a whim and we, all the people who a couple moons ago would have treated eldar dominance as given, just shrug and say: "Well, dark eldar are eldar +1 now". That's how empires fall.
Debated doing this, but shouldn't hide the bad to bouy scores.
ATC weekend, 6 games. Was just largely disastrous for my team, baring one guy.
Eldar vs Space Marines: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Genestealer Cult: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Crons: Draw
Eldar vs Mechanicum: Eldar Win
Eldar vs Daemons: Eldar Loss
Eldar vs Chaos Marins: Eldar Loss
Traitor Knights vs Dark Eldar: Knight Win
Traitor Knights vs AM: Knight Win
Traitor Knights vs Space Pups: Knight Win
Traitor Knights vs Traitor Knights: Knight Win (Our Knight player)
Traitor Knights vs Ultramarines: Knight Win
Traitor Knigths vs AM: Knight Win
Necrons vs Daemons: Necron Loss
Necrons vs Traitor Knights: Necron Loss
Necrons vs Eldar: Necron Loss
Necrons vs AM: Necron Loss
Necrons vs Necrons: Our Necron Loss
Necrons vs Salamanders: Necron Loss
AM vs AM: Our AM loss
AM vs Orks: AM Loss
AM vs Mechanicum: AM Win
AM vs Daemons: AM Loss
AM vs Imp Knights: AM Loss
AM vs Tau: AM Loss (Tau player went 90 of 120 points, did very respectably, Stormsurge spam)
Daemons vs Genestealer Cult: Daemon Loss
Daemons vs Mechanicum:: DaemonsLoss
Damons vs Blood Angels: Daemon Win
Daemons vs Orks: Daemon Loss
Daemons vs Eldar: Daemon Loss
Daemons vs Tyranids: Draw
Selym wrote: Impressivley, this is 21 armies over 1330 games. The lowest army (SoB) having a little over 20 games, the highest (IG) at over 150.
That's 63.33333 games per army!
Or, about 62.33333 more "test" games than Games Workshop runs on average.
It has just occurred to me that I made a methodological error. Since one game generates one win-stat and one loss-stat, the actual number of games being observed is near half the quoted figure, as I had counted both wins and losses. However, it is not quite half due to some of the wins or losses being paired with armies that have not had 20+ games yet.
koooaei wrote: What's making dark eldar so effective now?
They're basically Eldar +1 in several ways.
It's funny how human psychology works. Eldar have been "your army +1" for so long and it was common knowledge that such state would last for whole eternity. And it's all gone on a whim and we, all the people who a couple moons ago would have treated eldar dominance as given, just shrug and say: "Well, dark eldar are eldar +1 now". That's how empires fall.
Something that I think most people might not realise is this data shows that everything Eldar and down is statistically NOT better than Tau. Only the top 5 are.
I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
Anyway,
BA vs GK - BA victory (1000 points) BA vs GK - GK victory (1500 points)
Both games were a decisive tabling.
One tremendous oversight in the BA codex is the leadership of death company. They don't get a sergeant, so their leadership is 7. The elite Blood Angels Death Company has the exact same leadership as your average guardsman. WUT? This came up because I always take Purge Soul on Draigo, who has a base leadership of 10. 10+D6 vs 7+D6. He rolled a 2, I rolled a 5, obliterating an entire squad of DC with 1 spell, dealing 6 mortal wounds.
Marmatag wrote: I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
Anyway,
BA vs GK - BA victory (1000 points)
BA vs GK - GK victory (1500 points)
Both games were a decisive tabling.
One tremendous oversight in the BA codex is the leadership of death company. They don't get a sergeant, so their leadership is 7. The elite Blood Angels Death Company has the exact same leadership as your average guardsman. WUT? This came up because I always take Purge Soul on Draigo, who has a base leadership of 10. 10+D6 vs 7+D6. He rolled a 2, I rolled a 5, obliterating an entire squad of DC with 1 spell, dealing 6 mortal wounds.
AM vs AM: Our AM loss
AM vs Orks: AM Loss
AM vs Mechanicum: AM Win
AM vs Daemons: AM Loss
AM vs Imp Knights: AM Loss
AM vs Tau: AM Loss (Tau player went 90 of 120 points, did very respectably, Stormsurge spam)
AM vs AM: Our AM loss
AM vs Orks: AM Loss
AM vs Mechanicum: AM Win
AM vs Daemons: AM Loss
AM vs Imp Knights: AM Loss
AM vs Tau: AM Loss (Tau player went 90 of 120 points, did very respectably, Stormsurge spam)
Astra Militarum or Adeptus Mechanicus?
He consistently says "mechanicum" wherever it's ad mech.
Something that I think most people might not realise is this data shows that everything Eldar and down is statistically NOT better than Tau. Only the top 5 are.
Can you explain what are the negative score please ?
Marmatag wrote: I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
Anyway,
BA vs GK - BA victory (1000 points)
BA vs GK - GK victory (1500 points)
Both games were a decisive tabling.
One tremendous oversight in the BA codex is the leadership of death company. They don't get a sergeant, so their leadership is 7. The elite Blood Angels Death Company has the exact same leadership as your average guardsman. WUT? This came up because I always take Purge Soul on Draigo, who has a base leadership of 10. 10+D6 vs 7+D6. He rolled a 2, I rolled a 5, obliterating an entire squad of DC with 1 spell, dealing 6 mortal wounds.
Guardsmen are Ld6.
Sergeant brings them to 7 tho right?
And even then. These are the elite most BA. You pay like 180+ for 5 of them. And they DO suffer morale losses... they're just power armored marines with a 6+FNP... they should be LD 8 with a sergeant.
Marmatag wrote: I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
My current games played in 8th:
When I went 1st: W5 D1 L1
When I went 2nd: W3 D0 L0
Going second always seems to allow me to get the counter-charge, get in range, deal with my opponants deep striking units, etc. I take a good battering in the first turn but I quite quickly turn it around (maybe counter deep strike units have something to do with it?).
Marmatag wrote: I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
My current games played in 8th: When I went 1st: W5 D1 L1 When I went 2nd: W3 D0 L0
Going second always seems to allow me to get the counter-charge, get in range, deal with my opponants deep striking units, etc. I take a good battering in the first turn but I quite quickly turn it around (maybe counter deep strike units have something to do with it?).
I find i lose at least a quarter of my army going second.
In the 1500 point game I won, i did go second. I lost my raven, and some models inside due to the crash. That comes out to be over 20% of my list easily, and my only true anti-tank, other than the NDK. Additionally, my purifiers were stranded in the back.
The problem was my opponent had invested quite a bit into his storm raven, and even without anti-tank, my purifiers were able to advance into smite range to his raven, and deal 2D6 mortal wounds. Rolls slightly on the luck side, and I did 9 mortal wounds with the 2 purifiers. The NDK hopped over a wall, smited it, and draigo smited it as well. So it was left with 3 wounds remaining at the end of psychic, and I was able to shoot it down with the NDK, thanks to Draigo rerolls.
Inside the raven was a kitted dreadnought and some death company, which got obliterated as they were now in charge range. Additionally, my deep-strike paladins /w falchions and hammerhand got into combat with his warlord, getting a 12 on the charge roll (LOL) and did something like 5d3 wounds, we didn't even roll, just removed Dante.
So, by overexposing and going hard to kill my raven, he made his entire army vulnerable, and I rolled well. FWIW the map was "the scouring."
But all in all, I can't remember where I heard it, but in ITC games, the person who goes first wins 80% of the time.
Marmatag wrote: I find i lose at least a quarter of my army going second.
In the 1500 point game I won, i did go second. I lost my raven, and some models inside due to the crash. That comes out to be over 20% of my list easily, and my only true anti-tank, other than the NDK. Additionally, my purifiers were stranded in the back.
The problem was my opponent had invested quite a bit into his storm raven, and even without anti-tank, my purifiers were able to advance into smite range to his raven, and deal 2D6 mortal wounds. Rolls slightly on the luck side, and I did 9 mortal wounds with the 2 purifiers. The NDK hopped over a wall, smited it, and draigo smited it as well. So it was left with 3 wounds remaining at the end of psychic, and I was able to shoot it down with the NDK, thanks to Draigo rerolls.
Inside the raven was a kitted dreadnought and some death company, which got obliterated as they were now in charge range. Additionally, my deep-strike paladins /w falchions and hammerhand got into combat with his warlord, getting a 12 on the charge roll (LOL) and did something like 5d3 wounds, we didn't even roll, just removed Dante.
So, by overexposing and going hard to kill my raven, he made his entire army vulnerable, and I rolled well. FWIW the map was "the scouring."
But all in all, I can't remember where I heard it, but in ITC games, the person who goes first wins 80% of the time.
That's a big part of why I've won all the games I've gon second in: my opponant deep strikes, teleports, psychics, etc. their big hitters into my face then all of their firepower goes into taking down whatever big meany I've brought with me (Renegade Knight, Lord of Skulls, Magnus, Bloodthirster). Then after he's killed or crippled my big monster, half of my Berzerkers pile out and slaughter whatever he sent to take it down and my Terminators drop from the sky and cripple my opponant's big meany. I played a game against an Ork player where he got off a first turn charge on two 30 man boy squads that destroyed my Heldrake and crippled my Bloodthirster, half my Berzerkers then slaughtered one Boy unit and a Daemon Prince + the Bloofthirster slaughtered the other. Having something big and nasty looking seems to be the key of winning games this edition.
Marmatag wrote: I find i lose at least a quarter of my army going second.
In the 1500 point game I won, i did go second. I lost my raven, and some models inside due to the crash. That comes out to be over 20% of my list easily, and my only true anti-tank, other than the NDK. Additionally, my purifiers were stranded in the back.
The problem was my opponent had invested quite a bit into his storm raven, and even without anti-tank, my purifiers were able to advance into smite range to his raven, and deal 2D6 mortal wounds. Rolls slightly on the luck side, and I did 9 mortal wounds with the 2 purifiers. The NDK hopped over a wall, smited it, and draigo smited it as well. So it was left with 3 wounds remaining at the end of psychic, and I was able to shoot it down with the NDK, thanks to Draigo rerolls.
Inside the raven was a kitted dreadnought and some death company, which got obliterated as they were now in charge range. Additionally, my deep-strike paladins /w falchions and hammerhand got into combat with his warlord, getting a 12 on the charge roll (LOL) and did something like 5d3 wounds, we didn't even roll, just removed Dante.
So, by overexposing and going hard to kill my raven, he made his entire army vulnerable, and I rolled well. FWIW the map was "the scouring."
But all in all, I can't remember where I heard it, but in ITC games, the person who goes first wins 80% of the time.
That's a big part of why I've won all the games I've gon second in: my opponant deep strikes, teleports, psychics, etc. their big hitters into my face then all of their firepower goes into taking down whatever big meany I've brought with me (Renegade Knight, Lord of Skulls, Magnus, Bloodthirster). Then after he's killed or crippled my big monster, half of my Berzerkers pile out and slaughter whatever he sent to take it down and my Terminators drop from the sky and cripple my opponant's big meany. I played a game against an Ork player where he got off a first turn charge on two 30 man boy squads that destroyed my Heldrake and crippled my Bloodthirster, half my Berzerkers then slaughtered one Boy unit and a Daemon Prince + the Bloofthirster slaughtered the other. Having something big and nasty looking seems to be the key of winning games this edition.
I agree.
I think this is why Imperial Guard are so strong though in this edition. Most armies have to pay some price to alpha strike, in the form of exposing themselves or splitting their forces thanks to the 50% requirement. Meanwhile, you can have your 10 manticores sit back, completely safe, and hit literally anything on the table with 0 risk whatsoever. 10D6 dice with rerolls to hit, at strength 10, -2 d3? Things will die, and you don't even need to move an inch.
Marmatag wrote: I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
Anyway,
BA vs GK - BA victory (1000 points)
BA vs GK - GK victory (1500 points)
Both games were a decisive tabling.
One tremendous oversight in the BA codex is the leadership of death company. They don't get a sergeant, so their leadership is 7. The elite Blood Angels Death Company has the exact same leadership as your average guardsman. WUT? This came up because I always take Purge Soul on Draigo, who has a base leadership of 10. 10+D6 vs 7+D6. He rolled a 2, I rolled a 5, obliterating an entire squad of DC with 1 spell, dealing 6 mortal wounds.
Guardsmen are Ld6.
Sergeant brings them to 7 tho right?
And even then. These are the elite most BA. You pay like 180+ for 5 of them. And they DO suffer morale losses... they're just power armored marines with a 6+FNP... they should be LD 8 with a sergeant.
I thought Death Company were feral BA, like Wulfen.
Marmatag wrote: I'm not convinced that people are reporting their wins and losses fairly. Claiming that you've never lost a game in 8th is suspect. Have you never gone second? Or are you just playing well below your army level?
I haven't lost a game because my opponents are either bad or are still working out what's good for them, while I worked out what was good using computer simulations before the edition released. I've been clubbing baby seals on the head, as it were. In addition, quite a few were 500 point games played at the local store, which is configured with 4x4 boards right now.
As I remember, I've played since the edition dropped:
Imperial Guard vs. Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Orks
Sisters of Battle vs. Chaos Space Marines
Imperial Guard vs. Harlequins
Imperial Guard vs. Necrons
Imperial Guard vs. Renegade Guard
Sisters of Battle vs. Necrons
Sisters of Battle vs. Tyranids
Imperial Guard vs. Tyranids
Sisters of Battle vs. Deathwatch
Sisters of Battle vs. Grey Knights
Imperial Guard vs. Grey Knights
Sisters of Battle vs. Tau
Marmatag wrote: I find i lose at least a quarter of my army going second.
In the 1500 point game I won, i did go second. I lost my raven, and some models inside due to the crash. That comes out to be over 20% of my list easily, and my only true anti-tank, other than the NDK. Additionally, my purifiers were stranded in the back.
The problem was my opponent had invested quite a bit into his storm raven, and even without anti-tank, my purifiers were able to advance into smite range to his raven, and deal 2D6 mortal wounds. Rolls slightly on the luck side, and I did 9 mortal wounds with the 2 purifiers. The NDK hopped over a wall, smited it, and draigo smited it as well. So it was left with 3 wounds remaining at the end of psychic, and I was able to shoot it down with the NDK, thanks to Draigo rerolls.
Inside the raven was a kitted dreadnought and some death company, which got obliterated as they were now in charge range. Additionally, my deep-strike paladins /w falchions and hammerhand got into combat with his warlord, getting a 12 on the charge roll (LOL) and did something like 5d3 wounds, we didn't even roll, just removed Dante.
So, by overexposing and going hard to kill my raven, he made his entire army vulnerable, and I rolled well. FWIW the map was "the scouring."
But all in all, I can't remember where I heard it, but in ITC games, the person who goes first wins 80% of the time.
That's a big part of why I've won all the games I've gon second in: my opponant deep strikes, teleports, psychics, etc. their big hitters into my face then all of their firepower goes into taking down whatever big meany I've brought with me (Renegade Knight, Lord of Skulls, Magnus, Bloodthirster). Then after he's killed or crippled my big monster, half of my Berzerkers pile out and slaughter whatever he sent to take it down and my Terminators drop from the sky and cripple my opponant's big meany. I played a game against an Ork player where he got off a first turn charge on two 30 man boy squads that destroyed my Heldrake and crippled my Bloodthirster, half my Berzerkers then slaughtered one Boy unit and a Daemon Prince + the Bloofthirster slaughtered the other. Having something big and nasty looking seems to be the key of winning games this edition.
I agree.
I think this is why Imperial Guard are so strong though in this edition. Most armies have to pay some price to alpha strike, in the form of exposing themselves or splitting their forces thanks to the 50% requirement. Meanwhile, you can have your 10 manticores sit back, completely safe, and hit literally anything on the table with 0 risk whatsoever. 10D6 dice with rerolls to hit, at strength 10, -2 d3? Things will die, and you don't even need to move an inch.
How do I get my Manticores to re-roll to-hit?
Manticores are 133 points per model. The rocket is 2d6 shots at BS4+.
You're also drastically over exaggerating IG, and underestimating other force's, alpha-strike potential. Sisters of Battle make a far more powerful alpha-strike than Imperial Guard, and can reach almost anything almost anywhere with a turn-1 charge with any unit that desires to, and with twice the firepower of an equivalently costed Space Marine that wouldn't be able to make rapid-fire on turn 1.
IG have always been good at front loading damage, but they're not that exceptional at it. The thing is not that the IG are particularly beyond other armies at alpha-striking, it's that we're fairly protected if we have to go second.
mrhappyface wrote: Having something big and nasty looking seems to be the key of winning games this edition.
That's been true forever.
One of my friends used to field Slanesh CSM. The centerpiece of his army was this landraider he painted with a can of bright pink paint he got at walmart for $2 ($1.50 on sale).
When that thing was on the board, it was all you could see. I played games against him where I found myself maneuvering around the damn thing even after I had killed it because it was such an attention-grabber.
I remember one game where I shot at it with half my army before I realized I had been focusing a damn landraider instead of killing the deathstar he had spent 2 turns walking across the board into charge range.
But it's not just manticores, they're an example, there are quite a few nasty tanks. And good luck getting to them, and not hung-up or walled by conscripts.
As an army they have far and away the most synergy across their units. There's a reason they are represented so well with over 170 games played in this poll...
Doesn't IG's alpha strike come from being able to deep strike in a ton of plasma guns on Scions who are cheap as all hell, can take 2 special weapons per 5 guys, and have orders that let them reroll ones so that overcharging the plasma doesn't pose a huge threat?
IG absolutely have great alpha strike potential, simply from the amount of cheap DSing squads with special weapons they have access to.
No, they can't. Orders only work on Infantry units. Leman Russes have their own set, but it only works on Leman Russes.
Artillery can re-roll 1's if accompanied by a Master of the Ordnance and firing at a target over 36" away, or if accompanied by Harker or Yarrick.
Anyway, storytime. Playing GK with my IG, I got first go on him, and on turn 1, I killed a grand total of 7 models with every gun I had that could draw line of effect, or could fire indirect. He brought all his guys on during his turn, deep-striking terminators in front of my gunline. He charged the gunline, I absorbed it, lost about 30 guys, then fell back, shortening my perimeter by retreating between two houses I had heavy guns in. Then I shot him, and killed another 7 or 8 guys. He had to charge the perimeter again, because my tanks were still behind the line of guys, and killed another dozen men. I fell back, and shot him again, killing another 7 or 8 guys. I had three men left, but because of the terrain they were still blocking the path to the tanks. He charged them and killed them, but he was starting to run out of attack force, and I killed off the last of his guys with the next shooting phase.
It's not the opening salvo, it's the fact that our heavy guns can remain in play for more than 1 turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GI_Redshirt wrote: Doesn't IG's alpha strike come from being able to deep strike in a ton of plasma guns on Scions who are cheap as all hell, can take 2 special weapons per 5 guys, and have orders that let them reroll ones so that overcharging the plasma doesn't pose a huge threat?
IG absolutely have great alpha strike potential, simply from the amount of cheap DSing squads with special weapons they have access to.
Yes. Elysian Drop Troops with Special Weapons, and Stormtroopers as Troop Choices [why?].
I consider complaints about Scions to be legitimate complaints, because that's us stepping on someone else's toes and doing it better.
I consider complaints about Conscripts to be Space Marine players upset that they can't walk all over us. Without a fairly cheap and difficult to remove perimeter line, you can melee our tanks and guns on turn 1 and that's basically us not being able to play or be a viable army the way IG is supposed to be. It's not that hard to kill the Conscripts in 2 to 3 turns. My Dominions can do it faster, as can my Seraphim. In addition, the more the IG player invested in Conscripts, the less we invested in things that can actually kill you, like Manticores, Leman Russes, and Baneblades.
I see a lot of complaining about individual units in our army. However, most of what I see tends to be trying to kill off 133 points of Manticore supported by 210 points of Conscipts and another 133 point Manticore with 133 points of Space Marines, and concluding that the Manticore is overpowered. However, if you compare 2 133 points Manticores and 210 points of Conscripts+Support with 500 points of the enemy, it's much less lopsided.
Anyway, I'm going to play a few more games tomorrow evening at 75PL as part of the local league. We'll see if I can keep up the winning streak.
Marmatag wrote: I'm sorry, i confused an order with the master of ordnance. It is an inexpensive way to get mega rerolls on those.
It doesn't even work though. It's re-roll 1's to hit, but only if the target is over 36" away from the artillery tank.
Considering it's 36" from my board edge to the edge of your deployment zone, and the spg itself is a solid 5" long, there's a band of your deployment zone where I can't use the re-roll 1's effect, and if you move into the no-man's land, then the MoO isn't doing anything.
Our artillery is weaker than it's even been, and our alpha strike potential has gone down drastically relative to previous editions. We have to actually roll to hit on our crappy BS4+ now, and we don't even get as many shots as we could routinely get hits out of our artillery and tanks.
See if I can remember mine so far, in no particular order (I play vanilla marines);
Marines vs Daemons - Loss
Marines vs Daemons - Loss
Marines vs Daemons - Loss
Marines vs Space Wolves + Ad Mech - Loss
Marines vs Eldar - Loss
Marines vs Eldar - Loss
Marines vs Eldar - Win
Marines vs Eldar - Win
Marines vs Eldar - Loss
Marines vs Eldar - Loss
Marines vs Space Wolves - Win
Marines+Necrons vs Orks - Win
Marines vs Chaos Marines - Win
Marines vs Chaos Marines - Loss
Marines vs Guard - Win
A lot of very close games, often with only a point or two difference by the end. Eldar keep tabling me though, I hate those goddamn wave serpents and hemlocks with a passion.
Marmatag wrote: I'm sorry, i confused an order with the master of ordnance. It is an inexpensive way to get mega rerolls on those.
It doesn't even work though. It's re-roll 1's to hit, but only if the target is over 36" away from the artillery tank.
Considering it's 36" from my board edge to the edge of your deployment zone, and the spg itself is a solid 5" long, there's a band of your deployment zone where I can't use the re-roll 1's effect, and if you move into the no-man's land, then the MoO isn't doing anything.
Our artillery is weaker than it's even been, and our alpha strike potential has gone down drastically relative to previous editions. We have to actually roll to hit on our crappy BS4+ now, and we don't even get as many shots as we could routinely get hits out of our artillery and tanks.
It does work, i don't even know how you can claim that, it's fairly easy to get 36" away, it just varies with deployment zones. You're assuming all games have the exact same deployment zones.
Your artillery is actually much stronger than its ever been. Guard tanks were an absolute joke in previous editions. Your Leman Russ tanks even enjoy the same toughness and save as an Imperial Knight, excluding shooting invuln. And, you have the added bonus of conscript defense.
I don't even need to argue this though, it's very clearly reflected in the win/loss.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I consider complaints about Conscripts to be Space Marine players upset that they can't walk all over us. Without a fairly cheap and difficult to remove perimeter line, you can melee our tanks and guns on turn 1 and that's basically us not being able to play or be a viable army the way IG is supposed to be. It's not that hard to kill the Conscripts in 2 to 3 turns.
I see a lot of complaining about individual units in our army. However, most of what I see tends to be trying to kill off 133 points of Manticore supported by 210 points of Conscipts and another 133 point Manticore with 133 points of Space Marines, and concluding that the Manticore is overpowered. However, if you compare 2 133 points Manticores and 210 points of Conscripts+Support with 500 points of the enemy, it's much less lopsided.
So you are still doing the "conscripts are balanced" thing? Stop it. The counter play is literally just snipers. There is no way to efficiently kill them with the commissar still up, you will always sink an absurd number of points into killing them. I can bring out the premier infantry killers in my army, vanguard and Kastelans for admech, and they will not clear conscripts efficiently. 250 points of vanguard might barely be able to kill 150 points of conscripts with a commissar backing them before they themselves are killed, if everything goes in the vanguard's favor, 250+ points of kastellans still take 4 turns to clear them all out. Both of which don't have this same issue crop up when I face nids or orks weirdly enough.
I literally ran 6 units of rangers with sniper rifles just to deal with IG, because there is literally no counter play to this that isn't sniper rifles. It's such an awful mess of poor design and cheese. IG deserves to get nerfed into the ground, I've never seen people so convinced their absurdly broken army is balanced. Even eldar and tau WAAC players last edition didn't try to insist they were balanced, least not that I saw.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I consider complaints about Conscripts to be Space Marine players upset that they can't walk all over us. Without a fairly cheap and difficult to remove perimeter line, you can melee our tanks and guns on turn 1 and that's basically us not being able to play or be a viable army the way IG is supposed to be. It's not that hard to kill the Conscripts in 2 to 3 turns.
I see a lot of complaining about individual units in our army. However, most of what I see tends to be trying to kill off 133 points of Manticore supported by 210 points of Conscipts and another 133 point Manticore with 133 points of Space Marines, and concluding that the Manticore is overpowered. However, if you compare 2 133 points Manticores and 210 points of Conscripts+Support with 500 points of the enemy, it's much less lopsided.
So you are still doing the "conscripts are balanced" thing? Stop it. The counter play is literally just snipers. There is no way to efficiently kill them with the commissar still up, you will always sink an absurd number of points into killing them. I can bring out the premier infantry killers in my army, vanguard and Kastelans for admech, and they will not clear conscripts efficiently. 250 points of vanguard might barely be able to kill 150 points of conscripts with a commissar backing them before they themselves are killed, if everything goes in the vanguard's favor, 250+ points of kastellans still take 4 turns to clear them all out. Both of which don't have this same issue crop up when I face nids or orks weirdly enough.
I literally ran 6 units of rangers with sniper rifles just to deal with IG, because there is literally no counter play to this that isn't sniper rifles. It's such an awful mess of poor design and cheese. IG deserves to get nerfed into the ground, I've never seen people so convinced their absurdly broken army is balanced. Even eldar and tau WAAC players last edition didn't try to insist they were balanced, least not that I saw.
Just stop. This thread isn't about conscripts. Leave them for the conscript threads that keep getting locked.
Actually on that note, might as well post the results of a small little three round bracket tournament thing my local group did.
Admech vs Necrons: Admech victory
SoB vs SM: SoB victory
Admech vs SoB: SoB victory
IG vs CSM: IG victory
Ultramarines vs Tyranids: Ultramarines victory
IG vs Ultramarines: Ultramarine victory
Admech vs IG: Admech victory (bronze medal, woooo)
SoB vs Ultramarines: Ultramarines victory
Also worth noting for anyone about to point this out, 4 out of the 8 armies were basically built to counter the IG list.
Arandmoor wrote: Just stop. This thread isn't about conscripts. Leave them for the conscript threads that keep getting locked.
If people stop trying to defend their broken OP armies in this thread I will. If they keep going on and on about how everything is fine and people don't know what they are talking about, I will take the time to point out how utterly wrong they are.
Marmatag wrote: I'm sorry, i confused an order with the master of ordnance. It is an inexpensive way to get mega rerolls on those.
It doesn't even work though. It's re-roll 1's to hit, but only if the target is over 36" away from the artillery tank.
Considering it's 36" from my board edge to the edge of your deployment zone, and the spg itself is a solid 5" long, there's a band of your deployment zone where I can't use the re-roll 1's effect, and if you move into the no-man's land, then the MoO isn't doing anything.
Our artillery is weaker than it's even been, and our alpha strike potential has gone down drastically relative to previous editions. We have to actually roll to hit on our crappy BS4+ now, and we don't even get as many shots as we could routinely get hits out of our artillery and tanks.
It does work, i don't even know how you can claim that, it's fairly easy to get 36" away, it just varies with deployment zones. You're assuming all games have the exact same deployment zones.
Your artillery is actually much stronger than its ever been. Guard tanks were an absolute joke in previous editions. Your Leman Russ tanks even enjoy the same toughness and save as an Imperial Knight, excluding shooting invuln. And, you have the added bonus of conscript defense.
I don't even need to argue this though, it's very clearly reflected in the win/loss.
Leman Russes had better armor than an Imperial Knight, and could claim a 4+ save from a barricade, 3+ with a camo-net.
Basilisks rarely missed, thanks to blast templates. Against infantry they could routinely strike 3 or more models, assuming average dispersion, and against a tank a hit was nearly guaranteed. Same goes for Manticores and Leman Russes.
But yes, Leman Russes were a joke last edition. But, you know what? They're still an absolute joke. The Leman Russ Battle Cannon is so much trash now, as are almost all the other gun options. It needs Pask, or a Tank Commander to be effective.
SilverAlien wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I consider complaints about Conscripts to be Space Marine players upset that they can't walk all over us. Without a fairly cheap and difficult to remove perimeter line, you can melee our tanks and guns on turn 1 and that's basically us not being able to play or be a viable army the way IG is supposed to be. It's not that hard to kill the Conscripts in 2 to 3 turns.
I see a lot of complaining about individual units in our army. However, most of what I see tends to be trying to kill off 133 points of Manticore supported by 210 points of Conscipts and another 133 point Manticore with 133 points of Space Marines, and concluding that the Manticore is overpowered. However, if you compare 2 133 points Manticores and 210 points of Conscripts+Support with 500 points of the enemy, it's much less lopsided.
So you are still doing the "conscripts are balanced" thing? Stop it. The counter play is literally just snipers. There is no way to efficiently kill them with the commissar still up, you will always sink an absurd number of points into killing them. I can bring out the premier infantry killers in my army, vanguard and Kastelans for admech, and they will not clear conscripts efficiently. 250 points of vanguard might barely be able to kill 150 points of conscripts with a commissar backing them before they themselves are killed, if everything goes in the vanguard's favor, 250+ points of kastellans still take 4 turns to clear them all out. Both of which don't have this same issue crop up when I face nids or orks weirdly enough.
I literally ran 6 units of rangers with sniper rifles just to deal with IG, because there is literally no counter play to this that isn't sniper rifles. It's such an awful mess of poor design and cheese. IG deserves to get nerfed into the ground, I've never seen people so convinced their absurdly broken army is balanced. Even eldar and tau WAAC players last edition didn't try to insist they were balanced, least not that I saw.
Give up on the damn snipers. They're ineffective, and you're just going to go home crying. Try firing ~3 times their cost in dedicated anti-infantry shooting at them: 5 Dominions w/ SB = 60pts. 30 Dominions w/ Storm Bolters = 120 dice > 80 hits > 55 wounds > 38 killed. Of course, I'm not going to use 8 squads of SB Dominions, but more like 3 in Immolators, but a fairly similar effect is achieved.
But anyway, we've gone over this ad nauseum.
I'm not denying that we're good. Stormtroopers are obscenely overpowered. But I don't think conscripts are particularly OP.
Anyway, here's by 75PL list for league tommorrow:
KC Pask
CC 50 Conscripts
Infantry Squad
Infantry Squad
Commissar
Basilisk
Leman Russ Battle Tank
Shadowsword
I don't like it, because I don't like the 11PL on a BT, but I don't have the PL to make him a TC. And the Basilisk is straight out inferior to the Manticore, which is only 1 point more, but unless I lose something else, I won't have the PL. Stupid PL, I like working with points so much more.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Give up on the damn snipers. They're ineffective, and you're just going to go home crying. Try firing ~3 times their cost in dedicated anti-infantry shooting at them: 5 Dominions w/ SB = 50pts. 40 Dominions w/ Storm Bolters = 160 dice > 103 hits > 68 wounds > 43 killed.
Sure I'll use my 8 fast attack slots, all geared for the express purpose of killing conscripts, worth 3 times as many points as the unit, to almost kill it in a single turn if I can get them in rapid fire range. From the only other army that's even close to IGatm. That's a totally reasonable response. Thank you for illustrating how horrendously broken your army is.
I wonder if some of the statistical changes we're seeing is just down to people thinking in an 8e way now instead of a 7e way - instead of the actual codex power levels being more accurately accounted for.
For example, in 7e, you wouldn't look at Blobguard and think to yourself "If only I had my Wraithguard on me".
Ynnari Detachment
Yvraine - 135 Wraithguard w/D-Scythes - 225
You can drop an average of 20 autohits, most of which will wound. Throw in smite if you can. And if you used a WS as transport, well...
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Give up on the damn snipers. They're ineffective, and you're just going to go home crying. Try firing ~3 times their cost in dedicated anti-infantry shooting at them: 5 Dominions w/ SB = 50pts. 40 Dominions w/ Storm Bolters = 160 dice > 103 hits > 68 wounds > 43 killed.
Sure I'll use my 8 fast attack slots, all geared for the express purpose of killing conscripts, worth 3 times as many points as the unit, to almost kill it in a single turn. From the only other army that's even close to IGatm. That's a totally reasonable response. Thank you for illustrating how horrendously broken your army is.
Well, yeah. 3 times the cost of the conscripts is fair to remove them, because they have negligible offensive output and exist for the express purpose of providing a roadblock. This is what I'm talking about.
You're upset that you have to overcommit to them to clear them out in one turn. Because guess what, equivalent cost of firepower will get rid of them in about 3 to 4 turns. About double their cost will remove them in 2 turns, which is entirely fair, yes?
Also, I'm part of the reason Sisters are at the top. Literally a quarter of the games listed here are mine [22.2%], and I won all of them.
But let's try something else: Tau are distinctly at the bottom of the pile, and I have their index on me right now, 1 Suit Commander with 3 Burst Cannons and a Drone Controller, a big pile of 36 Gun Drones, and 4 Markerlights
4 Markers gets 2 hits, enough to safely ensure re-rolling 1's. Then, Suit Commander puts 12 shots that result in 4 kills. The big pile of gun drones puts out 144 dice, of which about 100 hit, of which 65 wound, of which 42 kill.
It takes about 3x the cost of conscripts in anti-infantry firepower to destroy them in one turn, assuming they are supported. It's about 2x the cost of them and their support, which strikes me as quite fair, really, after all, they're a unit designed to soak up more than their cost for a couple of turns.
Of course conscripts are vital to our victory, because they're a lot of bodies for cheap that ensures our big guns have the turns they need to make back their cost. As a rule, from my experience so far, every 50 conscripts buys about 2 turns of shooting, depending on the foe. They buy about 1 turn against the Tyranids and about 3 against the Grey Knights, but that's about where it stands, as I see it.
Again, I'm not deny my army is good. It's very good, because our units interact beautifully. It's called strategy. Each unit on its own is absolutely terrible, but when they work together they're superior to the sum of all parts.
It's also fairly normal to need 2-3 turns to remove an equal value of any target, and therefore to need 2-3x the cost for a one-turn kill.
There are outliers such as the lascannon HWS, which by virtue of being all gun and no HP can remove much more than their own cost but are also easily wiped by units that cost less than them. But for most units, needing multiple turns to kill them with equal cost is pretty normal.
Which makes sense if you think about it. If you could always reasonably expect to make your points back in one turn, doesn't that mean that if all your units started in range of the enemy (not hard to do for some armies) you could reasonably expect to table them on the first turn, because their army is the same cost as yours? If a 2000 point army typically doesn't table another 2000 point army in a single turn, what makes you think a 150 point unit can consistently wipe another 150 point unit in a single turn?
ross-128 wrote: It's also fairly normal to need 2-3 turns to remove an equal value of any target, and therefore to need 2-3x the cost for a one-turn kill.
There are outliers such as the lascannon HWS, which by virtue of being all gun and no HP can remove much more than their own cost but are also easily wiped by units that cost less than them. But for most units, needing multiple turns to kill them with equal cost is pretty normal.
Which makes sense if you think about it. If you could always reasonably expect to make your points back in one turn, doesn't that mean that if all your units started in range of the enemy (not hard to do for some armies) you could reasonably expect to table them on the first turn, because their army is the same cost as yours? If a 2000 point army typically doesn't table another 2000 point army in a single turn, what makes you think a 150 point unit can consistently wipe another 150 point unit in a single turn?
This.
Anyway, done with conscripts, because I'm going to wander back to IG tactica and try to further optimize my list. I might try to get a few games in tonight to try out my Sisters and IG lists, decide which one I like better, find and fix weaknesses, and bring the best list to League tomorrow. I'm finding myself hating the lack of granularity in Power Levels, because I tend to optimize, to make sure all units are as cheap as possible while doing their job, but PL just makes making all these optimizations impossible and I feel like I'm overplaying for units.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Give up on the damn snipers. They're ineffective, and you're just going to go home crying. Try firing ~3 times their cost in dedicated anti-infantry shooting at them: 5 Dominions w/ SB = 50pts. 40 Dominions w/ Storm Bolters = 160 dice > 103 hits > 68 wounds > 43 killed.
Sure I'll use my 8 fast attack slots, all geared for the express purpose of killing conscripts, worth 3 times as many points as the unit, to almost kill it in a single turn if I can get them in rapid fire range. From the only other army that's even close to IGatm. That's a totally reasonable response. Thank you for illustrating how horrendously broken your army is.
This isn't about conscripts. This is about an argument I see paraded around all the time that ticks me off.
"Killing Unit A requires more points of Unit B! This proves that Unit A is OP!"
Just because Unit B killed Unit A does NOT make Unit B magically disappear. It's still there, and can still go do something else constructive next turn.
"But, making me use Unit B in that way means they don't make their points back that turn!"
So? That's called tactics, son. And your opponent is not necessarily an idiot.
"But it shouldn't take me X00% of a units cost to kill that unit in one turn!"
This claim requires context. If Unit A is a glass cannon, then you are correct because being hit at all is something your opponent should be avoiding at all costs.
When Unit A is a freaking tarpit, then this complaint is missing the point and is completely invalid. Some units are designed to deal wounds. Other units are designed to take wounds. if you can kill a tarpit unit in one round, you had better be spending several times their points cost to do it because not dying immediately just because they got shot at is kind of their entire reason for existing in the first place. In fact, if you can annihilate them for roughly their points in one turn, it might actually be Unit B that's OP. Not the freaking conscripts...sorry. I meant Unit A.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Well, yeah. 3 times the cost of the conscripts is fair to remove them, because they have negligible offensive output and exist for the express purpose of providing a roadblock. This is what I'm talking about.
You're upset that you have to overcommit to them to clear them out in one turn. Because guess what, equivalent cost of firepower will get rid of them in about 3 to 4 turns. About double their cost will remove them in 2 turns, which is entirely fair, yes?
Also, I'm part of the reason Sisters are at the top. Literally a quarter of the games listed here are mine [22.2%], and I won all of them.
Because you screwed up the cost, I thought sisters actually got dominions with a storm bolter for 10 points, which would be absurd, not the 12 they actually cost. So my statement was about sisters being absurdly cheap, given I thought they had 8 point dominions till i looked it up.
Second, you realize you literally no other unit is that resilient, right? It's literally just conscripts. Who, I once again remind you, are still more offensively powerful than most basic infantry units. Beat the crap out of termagaunts in resilience and firepower, while something like horrors has morale issues to actually balance them out, as well as almost no offensive power. They put out as much damage for cost as my vanguard do, roughly as much as normal SoB do as well.
The number of dominions it takes to almost kill 150 points of conscripts (actually only 120ish points dead) can wreck two full units of termagaunts, costing 240 points. Or kill around 17-18 tacticals, again in the 221-234 ish point range, assuming they were combat squaded so morale isn't an issue. Or 35 of my vanguard, for a solid 350 points killed. Note that the vanguard are the only unit here who actually outperform conscripts offensively, both termagaunts and normal tacticals do less damage than their equivalent in conscripts.
So... no that's not what any other army pays for bodies. It isn't even close. Even other cheap infantry who contribute as much or less than conscripts do for their value don't take that much to kill.
Sorry?
