71534
Post by: Bharring
Because maybe you want some boots on the ground to support your Imperial Knight?
Or maybe you want a boat of raiding Kabs to add some firepower to your Ynnari or Harlequin force? Maybe you just want one unit of clowns to support your Craftworld Warhost?
Or maybe you want some traditional cultists to hide your Thousand Sons behind?
Someone in another thread convinced me that limiting stratagems to the Warlord isn't ideal, but there are plenty of reasons to take units that don't bring stratagems.
The thing that convinced me it's not great: Why would a Chaos Lord be unable to deepstrike Bloodletters in his army?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Drager wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Reemule wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote:Isn't page 10 same at page 2?
1. Fix CP to Point size, not Detachments.
2. Limit Stratagems to Warlord Specific.
3. Profit!!
Warlord specific stratagems will KILL allies. What good are units you can't use stratagems on?
Proof? I think they will be fine.
How can I prove it other than ask the question I just asked?
Why would I take units that can't use stratagems when I can take units that can use stratagems? Especially after the CP problem is fixed.
I don't think I've ever used a strat on my Farseer, he's just in the list to add psychic bonuses to my DE. If he couldn't have strats used it wouldn't change my list a jot. Now if I couldn't use strats on my Coven, becuase my Warlord is Kabal that would be an issue. Especially as at least one strat can only be used on Coven if warlord is Kabal, so that strat would be invalidated completely.
Well - I don't think hes suggesting what you are saying about kabal/covens. The argument is basically for only units stratagems from your warlords codex. Adding an auxiliary farseer is a really rare type of allied list. Most allied lists include good portions of 2 or more armies. Plus I honestly believe the doom interaction across all eldar lines (technically if eldar could ally with Tau - tau could use doom the way it is written) is an oversight and needs to be fixed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bharring wrote:Because maybe you want some boots on the ground to support your Imperial Knight?
Or maybe you want a boat of raiding Kabs to add some firepower to your Ynnari or Harlequin force? Maybe you just want one unit of clowns to support your Craftworld Warhost?
Or maybe you want some traditional cultists to hide your Thousand Sons behind?
Someone in another thread convinced me that limiting stratagems to the Warlord isn't ideal, but there are plenty of reasons to take units that don't bring stratagems.
The thing that convinced me it's not great: Why would a Chaos Lord be unable to deepstrike Bloodletters in his army?
At the competitive level - losing tactical flexibility with units is not a good thing. Gaurdsmen that can't use +1 armor stratagem could cost you a game. Kabs in a venom that you can't deepstrike with a stratagem aren't as valuable. Across the board it will basically make allies undesirable if the important changes are made that make allies problematic.
It's not problematic that you can pay points to have gaurdsmen screen your knight. It's not. What is problematic is gaurdsmen (are undercosted) give that knight buckets CP for essentially free (because they do still screen for the thing too) Or like in the case of doom you have rerolling wounds with haywire producing insane numbers of mortal wounds.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I *highly* doubt the Doom interaction is an oversight. It's been like that for many editions. Most rules that shouldn't be that way are very explicit about not being that way. Doom working that way has been an iconic part of the Eldar army for a long time, despite being just one power that one unit can take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
"At the competitive level - losing tactical flexibility with units is not a good thing. Gaurdsmen that can't use +1 armor stratagem could cost you a game. Kabs in a venom that you can't deepstrike with a stratagem aren't as valuable. Across the board it will basically make allies undesirable if the important changes are made that make allies problematic. "
Guardsmen in an IK list sure don't have the tactical flexibility of using their own stratagems. That'll hurt. But IK lists with Guardsmen have a *lot* more tactical flexability than pure-IK lists.
I agree that tactical flexibility is important. Which is why IK would still take some Guardsmen when they need boots on the ground. Even if they didn't have stratagems. Stratagems aren't the only form of tactical flexibility.
So remove allies' Strats, and you'll see less allies, sure. But you wont see 0 allies. Allies won't always be a bad idea.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Loss of stratagems don't hurt farseers casting doom or guardsmen providing CP and screening for knights. It however kills any balanced alliances of roughly equal sized forces. So it won't affect problematic cheese builds whilst invalidating many casual flyffy builds.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Honestly, I don't have many Strats for my Space Marines I cast. So my Marine/IK would continue the way it does, other than stealth nerf that I wouldn't be using Adept of the Codex.
And I think this continues with my proposed Deathwatch force I'm working on.
And really I never see someone bother to use Guard Stratagems in the BA/Guard/Castellan army.
So Yeah, I don't think it would kill Soup. Its not a Hater plan. Its a real fix that make stuff very even.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Reemule wrote:Honestly, I don't have many Strats for my Space Marines I cast. So my Marine/IK would continue the way it does, other than stealth nerf that I wouldn't be using Adept of the Codex.
And I think this continues with my proposed Deathwatch force I'm working on.
And really I never see someone bother to use Guard Stratagems in the BA/Guard/Castellan army.
So Yeah, I don't think it would kill Soup. Its not a Hater plan. Its a real fix that make stuff very even.
Wait - how does it make it even? If you weren't using strats for those portions of the army anyway doesn't that hurt others that do more?
113112
Post by: Reemule
The idea is that the game should be competitive for everyone and how they play.
The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?
Whats your idea?
120227
Post by: Karol
Well they make armies mono armies strong in the first place. If possible with multiple ways to play out of a single codex, and not just 2-3 units per codex being valid options to take, and everything else being tax.
The even if some sort of ally soup system exists, it is not very different from what you would be doing with your own book. Sure some stuff will end up better and some stuff will end up worse. But if done right and no extrem of either end of the spectrum exist, everyone at every level of play would be happy.
The state when soup is just always better, with no draw backs to take and huge difference of power levels between books means people end up in very unfun situation, when they face each other. A for fun soup list made out of the eldar books, can roll over most mono books that aren't eldar or orcs, when clocks aren't used. On the flip side if someone takes a really bad book and just slaps in 30+IG in to it, the list doesn't suddenly become magicaly playable, but to an outsider it seems like it is one of those WAAC tournament lists.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Reemule wrote:The idea is that the game should be competitive for everyone and how they play.
The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?
Whats your idea?
Sure, but you can't ban a piece of something and call it fair when you weren't using that piece anyway.
Are Castellan lists hurting from that? Certainly not.
One guy lives in a desert and has a lawn that needs no maintenance.
Another lives where he has grass.
The first guy calls for a ban on lawnmowers.
If you want to ban easy access to Vect or w/e then require a Battalion for stratagem access (or at least no AUX). A straight ban is bad for the game.
120227
Post by: Karol
 Crimson wrote:Loss of stratagems don't hurt farseers casting doom or guardsmen providing CP and screening for knights. It however kills any balanced alliances of roughly equal sized forces. So it won't affect problematic cheese builds whilst invalidating many casual flyffy builds.
A fluffy eldar list soup or not is well able to beat other faction cheese builds. So the argument is kind of a moot.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Reemule wrote:
The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?
This is common fallacy, that's not how it actually works. Many stratagems are tied to specific units. There are ten Space Marine stratagems (not counting chapter specific ones) that my marine army cannot use, as there are no corresponding units in the army. And yes, I could spend points on those units and I would get access to those stratagems. And if I use those points on Custodes units, I get access to some Custodes stratagems. Spend points on unit, get stratagems for that unit, regardless of from what book it was. Sounds fair to me. Automatically Appended Next Post: Karol wrote: Crimson wrote:Loss of stratagems don't hurt farseers casting doom or guardsmen providing CP and screening for knights. It however kills any balanced alliances of roughly equal sized forces. So it won't affect problematic cheese builds whilst invalidating many casual flyffy builds.
A fluffy eldar list soup or not is well able to beat other faction cheese builds. So the argument is kind of a moot.
But no because it is soup, but because Eldar have many undercosted units.
113112
Post by: Reemule
Crimson wrote:Reemule wrote:
The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?
This is common fallacy, that's not how it actually works. Many stratagems are tied to specific units. There are ten Space Marine stratagems (not counting chapter specific ones) that my marine army cannot use, as there are no corresponding units in the army. And yes, I could spend points on those units and I would get access to those stratagems. And if I use those points on Custodes units, I get access to some Custodes stratagems. Spend points on unit, get stratagems for that unit, regardless of from what book it was. Sounds fair to me.
The problem with Soup is it gives some factions so many more choices it allows for near endless min/maxing. Your idea that "sounds fair" exacerbates the situation by entailing not only the unit, but also any specific and any general Stratagems to the unit. This makes the problem worse, not better.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Reemule wrote:
The problem with Soup is it gives some factions so many more choices it allows for near endless min/maxing. Your idea that "sounds fair" exacerbates the situation by entailing not only the unit, but also any specific and any general Stratagems to the unit. This makes the problem worse, not better.
This is the same nonsense Shuppet has been spouting for pages, please stop. Marines have like 150 units, Harlequins have a handful. Some factions having insanely more choices than others is not a soup issue, it has existed in the game always and would exist even if soup was banned. I certainly welcome attempts to fix problems, but if you're misdiagnosing what the problem actually is, then you cannot come up with a good cure. CP farming is a real problem, miscosted units are a real problem, and some allied units being able to boost their allies might be real problem as well. Some armies having more choice is not a real problem.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Daedalus81 wrote:Reemule wrote:The idea is that the game should be competitive for everyone and how they play.
The issue is how are you ever going to make X allies list with access to 2 faction stratagem choices, on a level playing field with single Stratagem choice factions?
Whats your idea?
Sure, but you can't ban a piece of something and call it fair when you weren't using that piece anyway.
Are Castellan lists hurting from that? Certainly not.
One guy lives in a desert and has a lawn that needs no maintenance.
Another lives where he has grass.
The first guy calls for a ban on lawnmowers.
If you want to ban easy access to Vect or w/e then require a Battalion for stratagem access (or at least no AUX). A straight ban is bad for the game.
The best way to handle AOV is to nerf it. It's too reliable. Make it a 4+ and remove the on a 6 you get points back. Then drop it down to 3 points against or maybe 2 points. 2+ is just too reliable for an ability that strong.
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.
113112
Post by: Reemule
 SHUPPET wrote:I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.
I agree. but the balance is hard. I want soup to exist, but to provide no benefit over a mono faction.
How to get to that is the trick.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
SHUPPET wrote:I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.
That would and could work, but i kinda feel that not all allies require such a fix. Take gsc with broodbrothers for exemple, nobody complains about that since they got their own restrictions.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
 Marmatag wrote:My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
If so, why are mono armies inherently weaker then f.e. Soups?
Atleast in the competitive level sense?
You would imagine that that is kinda a problem when all lists at top Tier field soup,no?
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
Not Online!!! wrote: SHUPPET wrote:I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.
That would and could work, but i kinda feel that not all allies require such a fix. Take gsc with broodbrothers for exemple, nobody complains about that since they got their own restrictions.
Yeah, I don't know what would be perfect, I was just throwing out some examples of real costs.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Not Online!!! wrote: Marmatag wrote:My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
If so, why are mono armies inherently weaker then f.e. Soups?
Atleast in the competitive level sense?
You would imagine that that is kinda a problem when all lists at top Tier field soup,no?
Not even, in any major tournament "mono" lists are reasonably well represented. Not that it even matters. Tau and Orks did very well at SoCal. Necrons struggled but they're known to have problems.
You are doing the same thing everyone on dakka does - you feed off the communities collective outrage and ignorance, snowballing on nonsense comments that are taken as true because a lot of people repeat the same false narrative over and over.
Allies aren't a problem.
Here are your problems:
1. The Ynnari Faction. Should be squatted entirely.
2. Imperial Guard.
3. Knights, chaos & imperial
4. Daemon Primarchs.
Are you prepared to argue that the game should be balanced around Necrons? Because every other "mono" army is doing just fine.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
SHUPPET wrote:Not Online!!! wrote: SHUPPET wrote:I'm nervous to get back into this thread cause the debates are such a gak show, but I think a way to fix soup is just up the cost. Make an allied detachment cost 3 CP or something. Or even make it cost 100 points from your total points. Something that makes it a serious cost to offset the serious benefit it brings.
That would and could work, but i kinda feel that not all allies require such a fix. Take gsc with broodbrothers for exemple, nobody complains about that since they got their own restrictions.
Yeah, I don't know what would be perfect, I was just throwing out some examples of real costs.
Tbh some restrictions would be nice and properly fluffed out might improve the meta.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Marmatag wrote:My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Opinions about soup are already entrenched, they will not change, no matter how many pages of 'discussion' occur.
Selling product will guide all decisions made with regards to soup, like most businesses.
Soup sells models, codices, and boxed games.
All other suggestions about community involvement in such decisions are fantastically naive.
By posting in this discussion I have participated in its futility, I will carry that shame with me until my dying day.
115943
Post by: Darsath
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:Opinions about soup are already entrenched, they will not change, no matter how many pages of 'discussion' occur.
Selling product will guide all decisions made with regards to soup, like most businesses.
Soup sells models, codices, and boxed games.
All other suggestions about community involvement in such decisions are fantastically naive.
By posting in this discussion I have participated in its futility, I will carry that shame with me until my dying day.
This discussion isn't about predicting what Games Workshop will do. They'll clearly go where the money is. Discussing the issue, and voicing complaints (whether founded or not) is anything but a futile activity. Expecting people to remain silent and simply not complain is frankly absurd.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
 Toofast wrote: Marmatag wrote:My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.
Guard, Ynnari, and Daemon Primarchs have been a problem since day 1. This has nothing to do with allies. And both Tau and Orks were competing for the top 10 at SoCal. I'm not even sure how you can credibly say monofaction is struggling when they're placing ahead of nearly all of the participants with mono armies. Necrons are the only mono by force army that is struggling, and they're known to have fundamental problems.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Marmatag wrote: Toofast wrote: Marmatag wrote:My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.
Guard, Ynnari, and Daemon Primarchs have been a problem since day 1. This has nothing to do with allies.
Guard? Nerfed in it's mono ability.
Daemonprimarchs? Yeah preferably the double Tag Team, but just because you are a loyalist that does not mean that you can keep out rowboat, he is just as broken and singlehandedly blocks any buffs for marines because of his aura.
Ynnari are by nature soup.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
Why not look to current ally rules that doant seem broken?
The GSC stuff doesn't have the issues that standard soup does, right?
What if they put out a similar rule for the various Imperium, Eldar, and Chaos factions?
87012
Post by: Toofast
Marmatag wrote: Toofast wrote: Marmatag wrote:My suggestion to fix allies is to completely leave them alone as the current system isn't broken in the least bit.
Then you are living in some kind of alternate reality or you're totally ignorant of what has been dominating the meta for the entire duration of 8th. When imperial and ynnari soup make up 50% of top 3 at GTs, and mono factions struggle to make the top 15 in any event, soup is a problem.
Guard, Ynnari, and Daemon Primarchs have been a problem since day 1. This has nothing to do with allies.
And both Tau and Orks were competing for the top 10 at SoCal. I'm not even sure how you can credibly say monofaction is struggling when they're placing ahead of nearly all of the participants with mono armies.
Necrons are the only mono by force army that is struggling, and they're known to have fundamental problems.
You're looking at results from a single event to justify your thought process, which is asinine. Look at the results of all the GTs in 8th so far. Guard are a problem because they generate tons of CP for a cheap cost that can be used by IK, in other words, SOUP. Ynnari are a problem because you have Eldar and Dark Eldar being rewarded for covering each others weakenesses rather than paying a penalty for it, ie SOUP.
You're also using 2 factions to justify your rationale about mono factions being good. Imperial soup has racked up 69 top 3 finishes at GTs in this edition, Ynnari soup has 42. The best mono faction is nids with 21, then Tau with 13. Necrons are the only mono faction struggling? How about GK, with a whopping 6 top 3 finishes? How about Ad Mech? Also 6. How about Orks? They have a whopping 8. As usual, the data do not back up what you're saying. Either provide some kind of data proving that soup is not an issue (I'll save you some time, you can't) or admit that you're just making stuff up and pulling it out of your @#$.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.
#2 - GK are not a mono faction, they have access to allies, Necrons don't. It seems like you do not understand what mono means. I would suggest you take a breather from rage typing and actually do a modicum of research into what you're saying. If allies are so broken, why are GK not dominating? They have access to the most overpowered ally pool in the game. Answer: Because allies in and of themselves don't make the game broken. Problem units do. Hence my statement regarding Ynnari, Knights, Guard, and Daemon Primarchs.
#3 - Orks just got a codex, i'm not sure how you could make the claim that they should be on par with codex armies. That's nonsense. If you watch the BoK livestream from SoCal you can see an undefeated Ork player (with an index) playing for the #3 spot. This won't make your radar because you're approaching this from completely the wrong angle. (You are making the silent assumption that only lists finishing in the top 3 are successful. This isn't true. Going 4-2, or 5-1, at a major is a big accomplishment. Losing at the top table can drop you out of the top 10).
You are claiming allies are the problem. The burden of proof is on you. And, if it is so obvious, you shouldn't have any difficulty proving it.
As with most dakka posters, you're used to looking at a chunk of data with no context and drawing a sweeping conclusion that the unwashed masses here will agree with, because they live vicariously through 10,000 foot level recaps for tournaments they would never actually participate in.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Marmatag wrote:#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.
#2 - GK are not a mono faction, they have access to allies, Necrons don't. It seems like you do not understand what mono means. I would suggest you take a breather from rage typing and actually do a modicum of research into what you're saying. If allies are so broken, why are GK not dominating? They have access to the most overpowered ally pool in the game. Answer: Because allies in and of themselves don't make the game broken. Problem units do. Hence my statement regarding Ynnari, Knights, Guard, and Daemon Primarchs.
#3 - Orks just got a codex, i'm not sure how you could make the claim that they should be on par with codex armies. That's nonsense. If you watch the BoK livestream from SoCal you can see an undefeated Ork player (with an index) playing for the #3 spot. This won't make your radar because you're approaching this from completely the wrong angle. (You are making the silent assumption that only lists finishing in the top 3 are successful. This isn't true. Going 4-2, or 5-1, at a major is a big accomplishment. Losing at the top table can drop you out of the top 10).
You are claiming allies are the problem. The burden of proof is on you. And, if it is so obvious, you shouldn't have any difficulty proving it.
As with most dakka posters, you're used to looking at a chunk of data with no context and drawing a sweeping conclusion that the unwashed masses here will agree with, because they live vicariously through 10,000 foot level recaps for tournaments they would never actually participate in.
1. I have been providing data, you have just been hand-waving it away because it doesn't agree with your point, while also refusing to provide any data that counters it other than "one faction almost got top 10 at 1 event so soup isn't a problem".
2. GK aren't dominating because they are overcosted, that doesn't mean soup isn't a problem. None of the armies that are dominating in soup form would be nearly as powerful without the soup. However, if you balance their points based on soup lists, they become unplayable without soup. This is the problem. There is no way to create a point value that accurately represents how good a model is both in a single-faction list and in a soup list.
3. It does make my radar, it just does nothing to show that soup, overall, isn't a problem. Any army can have a decent showing at a single event. You need to look at what armies consistently win, or place top 3/10/15 at different events around the world over the course of the edition. There is only 1 type of army that does well at every event, on every continent, since the day this edition was released: soup.
If the fact that all the best armies this entire edition rely on soup to function, and the vast majority of the worst armies don't have access to soup doesn't do it for you, then I won't waste any more of my time debating someone who would rather stick their fingers in their ears and shove their head in the sand because facts don't agree with their preconceived notions.
112618
Post by: Arachnofiend
Let me ask you this, Marmatag: Do you think that the Necron/Ork/Tau codex should have a consistent advantage over the Space Marine/Guard/Drukhari codex in a tournament setting? The latter can all take allies to offset their weaknesses (Space Marine lack of chaff or Drukhari lack of psychic potential, for example) so if the former can compete with the latter's no-weaknesses versions than they must necessarily have an advantage over the "pure" version of those lists.
115943
Post by: Darsath
 Arachnofiend wrote:Let me ask you this, Marmatag: Do you think that the Necron/Ork/Tau codex should have a consistent advantage over the Space Marine/Guard/Drukhari codex in a tournament setting? The latter can all take allies to offset their weaknesses (Space Marine lack of chaff or Drukhari lack of psychic potential, for example) so if the former can compete with the latter's no-weaknesses versions than they must necessarily have an advantage over the "pure" version of those lists.
Stronger strengths, worse weaknesses would be the best way of doing this. Large alliance forces should be seen as generalists. Able to prepare for anything, but don't have the best specialists. Would make sense. Or just limit allies (or the CP from allies) in some capacity (like a 30% points limit).
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
Marmatag wrote:#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.
He provided data. It just didn't suit your narrative.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
I think soup is a great thing from a business viewpoint as well as fluff. The only issue is there being no downside to soup. I think some minor adjustments to CP sharing would move soup and non soup closer to each other in power and make the game far easier to balance. The less synergy between codexes there is makes them much simpler to balance. For instance look at knights that operate at a perfectly fine level and only really enter into OP category when being fuled by other codexes CP.
I doubt many want a complete removal of soup... simply a rebalancing
81227
Post by: Kithail
Ultra competitive players with a WAAC mentality are always going to look, and find, a way to get the most optimized (and therefore unbalanced/broken) listbuilding techniques. It is hard for a game designer to chase them. Today is soup combinations, tomorrow will be something else. If you design/direct games, you are aware of that paradox, as are armor designers through histort. I think that in the end, the CP pool is still the main problem. Doom and screens and whatnot are not THAT influential. Many useful solutions have been provided aroynd the issue
108023
Post by: Marmatag
SHUPPET wrote: Marmatag wrote:#1 - You have provided no data at all. You're the one claiming soup is broken. The burden of proof is on you. If you're looking at all GTs, you could try to use blood of kittens. They have SOME of the data you're looking for - the actual winning & placing lists. If you're looking at that data, you're just looking at the total numbers, not actually checking the lists. Not all of the 21 Tyranids lists are pure. And finally BoK even doesn't tell you the full picture.
He provided data. It just didn't suit your narrative.
Bad data has no value. It doesn't suit any narrative when it's flawed from the start. He's looking at blood of kittens data which goes back to the start of 8th edition. The game is fundamentally different than it was 6 months ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:
We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.
A million times this. And, those results don't tell you that at SoCal, there were Orks and Tau finishing with only 1 loss in 6 games.
Guard + a Castellan is as designed. It's a good list played by a great player. The problem here isn't "allies," it's "a Castellan is undercosted, and Imperial Guard are undercosted."
87012
Post by: Toofast
Daedalus81 wrote:
We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.
Yet through all those changes, soup has remained the dominant form of list building. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Kithail wrote:Ultra competitive players with a WAAC mentality are always going to look, and find, a way to get the most optimized (and therefore unbalanced/broken) listbuilding techniques. It is hard for a game designer to chase them. Today is soup combinations, tomorrow will be something else. If you design/direct games, you are aware of that paradox, as are armor designers through histort. I think that in the end, the CP pool is still the main problem. Doom and screens and whatnot are not THAT influential. Many useful solutions have been provided aroynd the issue
If you start by writing rules with the primary intention of balancing the game instead of forcing players to buy as many books as possible, it's a hell of a lot easier. Soup exists to make people buy 3 codexes when they would have only needed 1 in 5th edition without any allies or 2 in 6th/7th with the old ally system. Now to compete you need a BRB, 3 codexes, and chapter approved.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Toofast wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
We can't. So much has change since LVO and Nova. Codexes, FAQs, and new units have constantly cast the way the game plays into upheaval.
Yet through all those changes, soup has remained the dominant form of list building.
I'm not so sure that is correct.
Prior to LVO conscript spam was the soup du jour.
Then Bobby G and Stormravens.
And when Boots on the Ground came out it was Bobby G and Assbacks. And when Assbacks got hit it was Fire Raptors.
Then Eldar came out and it was Dark Reaper spam with a splash of Ynnari (and that has stuck). A straight BA list made 6th there. Custodes started going bananas.
Tyranids popped out and straight Tyrant lists were killing it. As well as DA with Dark Talons.
The Big FAQ kicked out the rule of 3 and silenced Reapers.
DE have been in the meta for 6 months. Knights for 5. Those are the two most featured "problems" right now and they have only been around for about ONE THIRD of this edition.
Now we're waiting for the big picture to be revealed with the Sep FAQ and CA on the horizon.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Dark Eldar as primary faction aren't doing nearly as well as CWE or Ynnari as a primary faction.
Really people should say: "I am upset about Ynnari." And that's FAIR, because Ynnari are stupidly strong. Being able to act more than 6 times, in a game where points are based on the assumption of maximum 1 action per phase, it absurd.
This entire thread is people conflating problem units with soup. And it's just painful to read.
11860
Post by: Martel732
For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Martel732 wrote:For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.
More accurately "Disintigrator Cannons are a big problem". They destroy most armoured infantry a bit too easily.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Grotesques out punch all my cc stuff, too. And splinter ignores gravis armor, etc. The list is long.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Marmatag wrote:Dark Eldar as primary faction aren't doing nearly as well as CWE or Ynnari as a primary faction.
Really people should say: "I am upset about Ynnari." And that's FAIR, because Ynnari are stupidly strong. Being able to act more than 6 times, in a game where points are based on the assumption of maximum 1 action per phase, it absurd.
This entire thread is people conflating problem units with soup. And it's just painful to read.
The fact that basically every placing list in every major event includes elements of other distinct armies, and that monolists are making practically no appearances at the winners tables, regardless of whatever specific units or factions are involved (imperial, chaos, xenos), illustrates that an issue with allies and soup exists.
Martel732 wrote:For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.
To be fair, this has been true in most editions. Despite their ostensibly raider/slaver nature, Dark Eldar have always done exceedingly well against more elite foes and less well against factions that rely on volume and numbers.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Martel732 wrote:For those of us that own power armor models, drukhari are a big problem.
Sure, and for Orks aggressors are a big problem. Should we nerf aggressors?
11860
Post by: Martel732
Sure, why not? They're already unusable. Aggressors arent invalidating half the game, though.
Why would orks ever see them anyway? They suck.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Martel732 wrote:Sure, why not? They're already unusable. Aggressors arent invalidating half the game, though.
Why would orks ever see them anyway? They suck.
Aggressors are fantastic.
And Orks are good. They were good with an index in the right hands, and with the codex being so good you're going to see more of them.
Armies like Dark Eldar & Eldar won't stand up to a true Ork army. They also struggle with GSC and Nids.
You can't complain about Eldar, while also not complaining about how marines handle Nids & Orks.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Keep in mind that you two play different versions of the game.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:Sure, why not? They're already unusable. Aggressors arent invalidating half the game, though.
Why would orks ever see them anyway? They suck.
Aggressors are fantastic.
And Orks are good. They were good with an index in the right hands, and with the codex being so good you're going to see more of them.
Armies like Dark Eldar & Eldar won't stand up to a true Ork army. They also struggle with GSC and Nids.
You can't complain about Eldar, while also not complaining about how marines handle Nids & Orks.
You mean by losing to them miserably? Get some better nid players. Nids roll marines.
Aggressors are gak. They are so far from fantastic it hurts.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Fair enough.
I see pretty much every faction doing well except Necrons & Grey Knights.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.
They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.
Or you take deathwatch (marines that have good rules) and deploy them that way. Really though - in DW you are just better off spamming intercessors IMO.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Xenomancers wrote:Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm. They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive. Or you take deathwatch (marines that have good rules) and deploy them that way. Really though - in DW you are just better off spamming intercessors IMO.
Aggressors don't need to worry about a delivery system. They're not there to run upfield and dominate, they protect you against anything that wants to be close. Dark Angels can hand them a 4++ as well. In cover that's a 2+/4++ T5 2W unit... that puts out an expected ~60 shots. And terrain is a thing.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.
They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.
Or you take deathwatch (marines that have good rules) and deploy them that way. Really though - in DW you are just better off spamming intercessors IMO.
Aggressors don't need to worry about a delivery system. They're not there to run upfield and dominate, they protect you against anything that wants to be close.
Dark Angels can hand them a 4++ as well. In cover that's a 2+/4++ T5 2W unit... that puts out an expected ~60 shots.
You are really just talking about dead aggressors then.
6 wounds for over 100 points is an absolutely joke for a unit that you are deploying on the battlefield in plain sight because they can't move and shoot twice. They just don't work that way. Even in cover with a 4++ they are easy to kill.
When a shinning spear cost 31 points...How can an agressor be 37?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
They aren't there to kill shining spears.
And things are always going to look "meh" when you compare them to one of the best units in the entire game.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote:They aren't there to kill shining spears.
And things are always going to look "meh" when you compare them to one of the best units in the entire game.
Why are you calling a unit that doesn't compare well to other good units fantastic then? They aren't fantastic. Not at that cost. Not just that - you can expect to see lots of units like shinning spears in competitive play. That makes them even worse.
They do good for me when I buff them with Gman out of a repulsor - but those lists would get wacked in a competitive environment.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.
Shining spears are OP.
Aggressors are good but not OP.
There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.
Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Marmatag wrote:There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.
Shining spears are OP.
Aggressors are good but not OP.
There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.
Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?
Why use aggressors when you can just bring more guard
119646
Post by: plark
I agree with most of this, I don't think people are complaining about soup so much as they are CP battery. Soup isn't the issue, and it's not just Imperium taking advantage of soup. The people complaining are the Xeno players that were shafted by an earlier codex but now that 8th has evolved, those codices haven't been touched to evolve to the way the game is. Codex power creep has always been a thing, but the frustrating thing is that they have a way to deal with it, but they choose not to.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Ice_can wrote: Marmatag wrote:There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.
Shining spears are OP.
Aggressors are good but not OP.
There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.
Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?
Why use aggressors when you can just bring more guard
Because aggressors are better shooting, and easier to hide.
Aggressors can enter a building.
Aggressors can fight in melee.
Guardsmen will not stand up to Orks in melee with the codex. Even Catachan guard.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Marmatag wrote:Ice_can wrote: Marmatag wrote:There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.
Shining spears are OP.
Aggressors are good but not OP.
There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.
Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?
Why use aggressors when you can just bring more guard
Because aggressors are better shooting, and easier to hide.
Aggressors can enter a building.
Aggressors can fight in melee.
Guardsmen will not stand up to Orks in melee with the codex. Even Catachan guard.
Plenty of other stuff in the guard codex to accompany that battalion your already taking if you need more high volume mid strength shooting. Punisher Russ say hi, if orks are a meta defining codex.
Go on charge that hellhound you know you want too. It's Orky
11860
Post by: Martel732
Marmatag wrote:Ice_can wrote: Marmatag wrote:There is always solid LOS blocking terrain. You can hide them with ease. If you're SW or DW then you don't even need to worry about it.
Shining spears are OP.
Aggressors are good but not OP.
There are shades of grey here in terms of balance.
Let's make a deal, no matter how good Orks become, everyone here will sign a pact saying they'll never use aggressors. Sounds fair?
Why use aggressors when you can just bring more guard
Because aggressors are better shooting, and easier to hide.
Aggressors can enter a building.
Aggressors can fight in melee.
Guardsmen will not stand up to Orks in melee with the codex. Even Catachan guard.
Neither will aggressors. Get real.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
They don't need to, they will vaporize Orks.
You bring Guardsmen not for the shooting, but the possible counter charge with 30+ S4 attacks. Lasguns won't do jack gak to charging Orks.
And like i said, Punisher Russ can't hide in a building. There is immediate and obvious value being able to position yourself on a ruins or terrain obstacle. Remember, you have to be able to place the model to be able to complete a charge. Aggressors standing on a 3" tall object, taking up all of the surface, means they're invincible to Orks, dishing out 60 quality dice a turn. Meanwhile a Punisher Russ gets overrun, and makes the Orks invincible to shooting for a turn.
The <INFANTRY> keyword is superior in a lot of ways.
11860
Post by: Martel732
If you have such a building. Or you draw a non-ork opponent. Dissy cannon plus doom murders all. Universally useful. Aggressors have one good match and 15 bad ones.
Your comparison is a false equivalence.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Martel732 wrote:If you have such a building. Or you draw a non-ork opponent. Dissy cannon plus doom murders all. Universally useful. Aggressors have one good match and 15 bad ones.
Your comparison is a false equivalence.
Oh i forgot that doom is applied to every unit on the table regardless of position and range. I also forgot that every single list has disintigrator cannons, even ones that aren't Eldar. Dark Angels disintigrator cannons are especially good.
You're just being salty for the sake of it.
11860
Post by: Martel732
If you say so. Eldar soup is saturating every event and my meta. But please continue.
71534
Post by: Bharring
If everythign in your list is getting Doomed all the time, maybe play a list that isn't one unit?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Shining Spear
Aggressor
So for 6 points aggressors are tougher, worse range (with BF Spears have considerable reach), but more shooting. Their melee is stronger, but they are slow although can run and gun without penalty similar to Spears. Aggressors also have the chance to double tap.
A 4++ certainly adds to Spears, but when you're taking AP0/1 fire it doesn't matter so much. So, is the point that Spears are more immune to Disintegrators rather than being better overall?
3 Aggs take down 3 Spears if they're standing still. If they're run & gun they'll kill one, likely won't lose one to overwatch, and kill the rest.
3 Spears take down 1 Agg in shooting. Aggs might kill one in overwatch and then are finished off in melee.
So Spears pulp Aggs and Aggs pulp Spears. If Aggs had a 4++ they'd be gloating over the Laser Lance a little.
Certainly Spears do a lot more, because 1) they're really fast, 2) they have solid psyhic support, and 3) have access to ynnari / alaitoc. Aggressors with BobbyG will ace 3 Spears without double tap and 6 with.
This is the thing that really bugs me about balance discussions. Spears may go up a bit. Aggs are not going to take a fundamental price cut. Maybe 5 points. Does that change your perspective of them? Of course it won't, because disintegrators are still a thing. Even if disintegrators go up people will take them and they will ace Aggressors, Terminators, or whatever else.
The problem is not that aggressors are terribly costed. It's that it is too easy for some to remove W2 models. Playing Aggressors as area denial with a small footprint and keeping them out of firing lanes is the more prudent approach unless you have a delivery system to get them in a place for maximum pain.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:If you have such a building. Or you draw a non-ork opponent. Dissy cannon plus doom murders all. Universally useful. Aggressors have one good match and 15 bad ones.
Your comparison is a false equivalence.
Oh i forgot that doom is applied to every unit on the table regardless of position and range. I also forgot that every single list has disintigrator cannons, even ones that aren't Eldar. Dark Angels disintigrator cannons are especially good.
You're just being salty for the sake of it.
Hes talking about options that are good vs everything they face - aggressors are good in like 1 situation (an opponent who can't shoot you and walks into your kill zone - AKA bad lists)
Why would I take agressors over a punisher russ? Or mortars? Or even the inferior wyvern? Or even - standard infantry squads (which are at 0 risk of being 1 shot be specials), or a much more compareable shooting profile and price point of a taroux prime?
11860
Post by: Martel732
There is no reason to take primaris while dissy cannons and butcher cannons exist.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Xenomancers wrote: Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:If you have such a building. Or you draw a non-ork opponent. Dissy cannon plus doom murders all. Universally useful. Aggressors have one good match and 15 bad ones.
Your comparison is a false equivalence.
Oh i forgot that doom is applied to every unit on the table regardless of position and range. I also forgot that every single list has disintigrator cannons, even ones that aren't Eldar. Dark Angels disintigrator cannons are especially good.
You're just being salty for the sake of it.
Hes talking about options that are good vs everything they face - aggressors are good in like 1 situation (an opponent who can't shoot you and walks into your kill zone - AKA bad lists)
Why would I take agressors over a punisher russ? Or mortars? Or even the inferior wyvern? Or even - standard infantry squads (which are at 0 risk of being 1 shot be specials), or a much more compareable shooting profile and price point of a taroux prime?
Because this game isn't played on paper, there's a map with actual terrain that changes how the game is played.
Aggressors can climb and be immune to assault. They can hide inside buildings if your opponent is going to gun them down.
A punisher russ has much more trouble protecting itself.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Counting on specific terrain is folly. The smart choice is the Russ.
121978
Post by: Sir Heckington
whew
Okay. This thread has gone bonkers.
On a note actually related to soup and not... aggressors?
My idea has always been that detachments should cost CP and that the base CP should be determined based on the point value.
From a fluff point of view, as an army gets more complex it should be harder to efficiently control than otherwise no?
Anyway, it's just an idea I had, feel free to poke about 1000 holes in it cause I missed some obvious flaw.
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
Did this guy legitimately just say Dark Eldar and Eldar struggle against Tyranids? Lol.
What's the tipping point that you have to get to before you consider that you may not understand this game all that well
117900
Post by: Dandelion
SHUPPET wrote:Did this guy legitimately just say Dark Eldar and Eldar struggle against Tyranids? Lol.
What's the tipping point that you have to get to before you consider that you may not understand this game all that well
Where? All I could find is that he said marines handle nids badly, or something like that.
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
It was here:
Marmatag wrote:
Armies like Dark Eldar & Eldar won't stand up to a true Ork army. They also struggle with GSC and Nids.
121430
Post by: ccs
Xenomancers wrote:Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.
They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.
So other than a LS-storm, what type of delivery system do you want for them?
108848
Post by: Blackie
I'm not against soups but I hate the fact that some armies become so much better with allies at the point that everyone that wants to field those factions starts bringing a soup.
Faction lock soup CPs would be a great solution. This way you may want the soup for the units, not for creating cheap CPs. You may want guardsmen to add some cheap wounds to the list, not to make use of very powerful stratagems that buff elite units. That's not fair and there's nothing fluffy about that.
This combined to a serious nerf to the AM which has been overpowered since index edition. Even crappy ork boyz got a price hike. Guardsmen should cost more, and also their artillery.
The space elves soup isn't a real problem since both eldar and drukhari can compete on their own. I'm a drukhari player and I haven't even considered to ally something in my army, the codex has already so many limitations since it's divided into three subfactions.
Just make their 2-3 best units a bit more expensive. And maybe a buff to the other underwhelming units in their codexes so people can have more option to choose from without relying on soups. Automatically Appended Next Post: SHUPPET wrote:Did this guy legitimately just say Dark Eldar and Eldar struggle against Tyranids? Lol.
Tyranids are solid mid tiers with way more different and competitive options than drukhari that are stuck on the same couple of lists if they want to be top tiers. Not everyone owns lots of coven stuff for example, the 3x3 grotesques that scares everyone here it's not that common.
115943
Post by: Darsath
It is actually true that Tyranids have more competitive options than Drukhari as far as just number of competitive lists is concerned. That being said, the Drukhari lists that people do play are much stronger than any Tyranid list available.
112618
Post by: Arachnofiend
I don't claim to speak for Marmatag, but I assume the idea was that the Nids lists Drukhari struggle against run horde units that don't die efficiently to poison. I... don't know enough about Tyranids to dispute that but my impression is that is an inaccurate representation of the faction since some of the big bugs are quite viable (hive tyrants if nothing else) and those naturally hate poison.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
I play both DE and Tyranids competitively.
The standard Kraken Double Battalion cuts up Eldar really bad. You have lots of bodies, which is already tough to deal with, and you're fast enough to negate their speed completely.
Additionally, most of the Tyranid shooting is in the perfect spot to deal with Dark Eldar. Decent volume dakka without AP but mid to high strength. That's a problem for DE. Nothing Eldar stands up to Tyranid melee.
Dark Eldar, while being mobile, have to cluster a bit. Like Marines they depend on buff bubbles to function optimally. This really helps armies like Nids which don't suffer from that and can really attack in a lot of ways.
Eldar in general struggle with volume melee. What good are 10 dark reapers in the face of a ton of 1 wound, invulnerable save bodies screaming across the table? How useful are shining spears when they slam into Hormagants? Blasters and dark lances are wasted on genestealers. Disintigrator cannons can deal some damage, but not really enough, because you'll be wrapping around targets at the latest on turn 2. Don't forget to overrun out behind or inside buildings. (Buildings are the bane of eldar. Hint hint. Every ITC tournament has buildings). Good luck casting doom with 1 dice. Good luck casting word of the lulz with shadow in the warp.
I feel like people in this thread look at Tyranids doing well in ITC and are generally confused. On paper they should lose. And against Knights and Custodes they struggle, but here's the thing, the meta has adapted. My list, and many others, spam haywire like it's going out of style, and that helps armies like Nids be even better. FWIW the opportunity cost of haywire blasters is very high.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
ccs wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Agressors could be great like - if they could go in a land speeder storm.
They have no effective delivery system outside of a Repulsor. Repulsor is just too dang expensive.
So other than a LS-storm, what type of delivery system do you want for them?
Reduced cost repulsor / New rhino that can transport primaris / current rhino goes down in points and can transport primaris. Something like that.
85299
Post by: Spoletta
Nids are a really solid faction kept in check by the existence of knights.
Don't mistake the fact that tyranids don't always get to the top spots of a tournament with the fact that they are a weak faction. They are not. They don't do well in tournaments because there are a lot of knights there, but if you meet them and you don't have knights, get ready for an hard game.
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
Marmatag wrote:I play both DE and Tyranids competitively.
The standard Kraken Double Battalion cuts up Eldar really bad. You have lots of bodies, which is already tough to deal with, and you're fast enough to negate their speed completely.
Additionally, most of the Tyranid shooting is in the perfect spot to deal with Dark Eldar. Decent volume dakka without AP but mid to high strength. That's a problem for DE. Nothing Eldar stands up to Tyranid melee.
Dark Eldar, while being mobile, have to cluster a bit. Like Marines they depend on buff bubbles to function optimally. This really helps armies like Nids which don't suffer from that and can really attack in a lot of ways.
Eldar in general struggle with volume melee. What good are 10 dark reapers in the face of a ton of 1 wound, invulnerable save bodies screaming across the table? How useful are shining spears when they slam into Hormagants? Blasters and dark lances are wasted on genestealers. Disintigrator cannons can deal some damage, but not really enough, because you'll be wrapping around targets at the latest on turn 2. Don't forget to overrun out behind or inside buildings. (Buildings are the bane of eldar. Hint hint. Every ITC tournament has buildings). Good luck casting doom with 1 dice. Good luck casting word of the lulz with shadow in the warp.
I feel like people in this thread look at Tyranids doing well in ITC and are generally confused. On paper they should lose. And against Knights and Custodes they struggle, but here's the thing, the meta has adapted. My list, and many others, spam haywire like it's going out of style, and that helps armies like Nids be even better. FWIW the opportunity cost of haywire blasters is very high.
almost everything you just said about DE is wrong. If clustering up is going to get you surrounded and lose you the game, you don't have to do it at all. The cards are in your favor and the buffs are nowhere near that critical. You can absolutely split up to claim more ground as well. That's not a weakness of DE at all lol. Also Your shooting outranges Tyranid by up to double, your units are outspeeding anything other than double moving Stealers, (which your army deals with better than almost any other army) and even your basic rifle wounds Tyrants, Fexes and any other MC on a 4.
CWE is to Tyranids advantage yes, but not Ynnari, and it's largely to do with the fact that the strength lf Eldar lies in that one word.
What's this crap about Harlies I thought we were comparing DE & CWE? If you're throwing in Harlies may as well throw in Ynnari keyword and then it's still a lose for Tyranids, Haywire Bikes and all.
Spoletta wrote:Nids are a really solid faction kept in check by the existence of knights.
Don't mistake the fact that tyranids don't always get to the top spots of a tournament with the fact that they are a weak faction. They are not. They don't do well in tournaments because there are a lot of knights there, but if you meet them and you don't have knights, get ready for an hard game.
Some armies that Tyranids have a worse win rate in tournament against then Knights:
Ynnari, Thousand Sons, Drukhari, Chaos Daemons, Custodes
Knights are just one of a pool of poor match ups for Tyranids, and they are NOT some silver bullet that keeps Bugs down in every tournament. Drukhari is one of the toughest matches on the table for Nids.
There's a rereason this experience is so vastly replicated by even the best players at the game.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
SHUPPET wrote:Marmatag wrote:I play both DE and Tyranids competitively.
The standard Kraken Double Battalion cuts up Eldar really bad. You have lots of bodies, which is already tough to deal with, and you're fast enough to negate their speed completely.
Additionally, most of the Tyranid shooting is in the perfect spot to deal with Dark Eldar. Decent volume dakka without AP but mid to high strength. That's a problem for DE. Nothing Eldar stands up to Tyranid melee.
Dark Eldar, while being mobile, have to cluster a bit. Like Marines they depend on buff bubbles to function optimally. This really helps armies like Nids which don't suffer from that and can really attack in a lot of ways.
Eldar in general struggle with volume melee. What good are 10 dark reapers in the face of a ton of 1 wound, invulnerable save bodies screaming across the table? How useful are shining spears when they slam into Hormagants? Blasters and dark lances are wasted on genestealers. Disintigrator cannons can deal some damage, but not really enough, because you'll be wrapping around targets at the latest on turn 2. Don't forget to overrun out behind or inside buildings. (Buildings are the bane of eldar. Hint hint. Every ITC tournament has buildings). Good luck casting doom with 1 dice. Good luck casting word of the lulz with shadow in the warp.
I feel like people in this thread look at Tyranids doing well in ITC and are generally confused. On paper they should lose. And against Knights and Custodes they struggle, but here's the thing, the meta has adapted. My list, and many others, spam haywire like it's going out of style, and that helps armies like Nids be even better. FWIW the opportunity cost of haywire blasters is very high.
almost everything you just said about DE is wrong. If clustering up is going to get you surrounded and lose you the game, you don't have to do it at all. The cards are in your favor and the buffs are nowhere near that critical. You can absolutely split up to claim more ground as well. That's not a weakness of DE at all lol. Also Your shooting outranges Tyranid by up to double, your units are outspeeding anything other than double moving Stealers, (which your army deals with better than almost any other army) and even your basic rifle wounds Tyrants, Fexes and any other MC on a 4.
CWE is to Tyranids advantage yes, but not Ynnari, and it's largely to do with the fact that the strength lf Eldar lies in that one word.
What's this crap about Harlies I thought we were comparing DE & CWE? If you're throwing in Harlies may as well throw in Ynnari keyword and then it's still a lose for Tyranids, Haywire Bikes and all.
Spoletta wrote:Nids are a really solid faction kept in check by the existence of knights.
Don't mistake the fact that tyranids don't always get to the top spots of a tournament with the fact that they are a weak faction. They are not. They don't do well in tournaments because there are a lot of knights there, but if you meet them and you don't have knights, get ready for an hard game.
Some armies that Tyranids have a worse win rate in tournament against then Knights:
Ynnari, Thousand Sons, Drukhari, Chaos Daemons, Custodes
Knights are just one of a pool of poor match ups for Tyranids, and they are NOT some silver bullet that keeps Bugs down in every tournament. Drukhari is one of the toughest matches on the table for Nids.
There's a rereason this experience is so vastly replicated by even the best players at the game.
Well, needless to say, I disagree with much of what is being said here.
Maybe it's different in Europe, with open war and maelstrom cards dictating the games more than player skill. luls
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
Lol maybe. Though it does to me sound like a fundamental misunderstanding of how DE play, even though the rest of your post was mostly accurate
108023
Post by: Marmatag
SHUPPET wrote:Lol maybe. Though it does to me sound like a fundamental misunderstanding of how DE play, even though the rest of your post was mostly accurate
I've done very well with my DE in the competitive scene, as well as outperforming other DE, so /shrug.
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
But you are struggling in a match up top players internationally find slanted in your favor so /shrug
108023
Post by: Marmatag
SHUPPET wrote:But you are struggling in a match up top players internationally find slanted in your favor so /shrug
I'm not struggling, i win that matchup with my Tyranids. /shrug
I haven't drawn Tyranids with DE except one time, and I won. But, when you play the list regularly you know how to counter it. /super shrug
108848
Post by: Blackie
Well it depends on the Drukhari and Tyranids lists mostly. A list that is very competitive in tournament may not be as strong in a regular game with no time limitations and probably no knights lists which seem to scary everyone these days.
My best performing list (and its small variants) has lots of coven stuff and not a single lance for example, just 3-5 blasters as pure anti tank. But tons of dis cannons. That makes it quite strong against tyranids, which are basically played as hordes of bugs in my area, but I also see competitive Drukhari lists with only shooting and tons of lances that are very popular but they will struggle a lot against the Tyranids I usually face.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Arachnofiend wrote:I don't claim to speak for Marmatag, but I assume the idea was that the Nids lists Drukhari struggle against run horde units that don't die efficiently to poison. I... don't know enough about Tyranids to dispute that but my impression is that is an inaccurate representation of the faction since some of the big bugs are quite viable (hive tyrants if nothing else) and those naturally hate poison.
Dark eldars had no trouble whatsoever blowing up index orks. Will be interesting to see how they deal with orks now that orks can actually shoot back and deep strike+assault has got more reliable. In index 360 model ork army? Easy peasy with dark lance heavy dark eldars.
101163
Post by: Tyel
tneva82 wrote: Arachnofiend wrote:I don't claim to speak for Marmatag, but I assume the idea was that the Nids lists Drukhari struggle against run horde units that don't die efficiently to poison. I... don't know enough about Tyranids to dispute that but my impression is that is an inaccurate representation of the faction since some of the big bugs are quite viable (hive tyrants if nothing else) and those naturally hate poison.
Dark eldars had no trouble whatsoever blowing up index orks. Will be interesting to see how they deal with orks now that orks can actually shoot back and deep strike+assault has got more reliable. In index 360 model ork army? Easy peasy with dark lance heavy dark eldars.
"Splinter doesn't work versus hordes" meets Tneva82's "a weak breeze kills 60 Orks a turn".
If the DE is running heavy lances they will be in trouble - but they have not done that since the codex (where DE became progressively crap despite being leagues ahead of 7th edition).
Killing 360 models might be a challenge, but splinter and dissies did fine versus 6 point orks. They start to get rubbish against 4 point guardsmen & gaunts - but these are not typically spammed in massive numbers (re: hundreds) and this is equally true for just about every faction in the game.
Against 7 point orks venoms are netting a 30% or so return before buffs, which is fine. Kabalites net a 64% return pre buffs in rapid fire range. This idea that DE have trouble with hordes really doesn't stack up.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Going back to the OT....
I think my issue with Soup is that it's very, very Imperial. They get the best of everything when it comes to soup. Cheap and cheerful infantry? There's Guard for that. And they come with lots of CPs. Face Smasher units? Smash Captain, or Jetbike Custard Captains. Need some artillery? There's Guard for that. And it's not unreasonably priced.
For everyone else, their Soup Menu is much more limited. They're either variations on the same theme (Chaos, Eldar), or just can't soup it at all (Orks, Necrons, Nids). Only Imperium has the choice to properly exploit things, and mash together the cream of each crop.
Simple answer is 'no sharing formation CPs'. That cuts down a lot of shenanigans (like Smash Captains).
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Tyel wrote:tneva82 wrote: Arachnofiend wrote:I don't claim to speak for Marmatag, but I assume the idea was that the Nids lists Drukhari struggle against run horde units that don't die efficiently to poison. I... don't know enough about Tyranids to dispute that but my impression is that is an inaccurate representation of the faction since some of the big bugs are quite viable (hive tyrants if nothing else) and those naturally hate poison.
Dark eldars had no trouble whatsoever blowing up index orks. Will be interesting to see how they deal with orks now that orks can actually shoot back and deep strike+assault has got more reliable. In index 360 model ork army? Easy peasy with dark lance heavy dark eldars.
"Splinter doesn't work versus hordes" meets Tneva82's "a weak breeze kills 60 Orks a turn".
If the DE is running heavy lances they will be in trouble - but they have not done that since the codex (where DE became progressively crap despite being leagues ahead of 7th edition).
Killing 360 models might be a challenge, but splinter and dissies did fine versus 6 point orks. They start to get rubbish against 4 point guardsmen & gaunts - but these are not typically spammed in massive numbers (re: hundreds) and this is equally true for just about every faction in the game.
Against 7 point orks venoms are netting a 30% or so return before buffs, which is fine. Kabalites net a 64% return pre buffs in rapid fire range. This idea that DE have trouble with hordes really doesn't stack up.
DE have this weapon called a shredder. It's maybe the best anti infantry weapon in the game for it's points. I include a lot of them in my lists.
d6 shots reroll wounds agianst infantry - str 6 ap-1 and ignore cover if you are in flayed skull.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Your strategies sound great in theory. But it's difficult to kill blobs of 30 boyz. And then if you don't kill them all, it's Green Tide time. And there's more Boyz on the table, or deep striking at your face.
You think you can just maximize all your shooting, but then you remember that you need area denial or they'll deep strike in a bad spot, and you also need to wall against Stormboyz, Meganobz, etc. The new Ere We Go is really, really good.
And seriously terrain is a thing. Killing the last 5 boyz is not easy if the Ork player has a brain and daisy chains them out of LOS.
Orks are a tough matchup. It's winnable, but tough. The game could go either way depending on dice.
I've actually played against the new Ork Codex and a tuned list. Have you?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Marmatag wrote:Your strategies sound great in theory. But it's difficult to kill blobs of 30 boyz. And then if you don't kill them all, it's Green Tide time. And there's more Boyz on the table, or deep striking at your face.
You think you can just maximize all your shooting, but then you remember that you need area denial or they'll deep strike in a bad spot, and you also need to wall against Stormboyz, Meganobz, etc. The new Ere We Go is really, really good.
And seriously terrain is a thing. Killing the last 5 boyz is not easy if the Ork player has a brain and daisy chains them out of LOS.
Orks are a tough matchup. It's winnable, but tough. The game could go either way depending on dice.
I've actually played against the new Ork Codex and a tuned list. Have you?
I find the new Orks to be really brutal in the few games I've had.
With enough shots to clear my weak chaff and then friggin Gorkanauts ramming my front line plus a green tide if I don't finish off a unit...
I predict meltas are about to become really popular. Also, more durable chaff - I think i'm going to start using spawn as deepstrike zone spreaders.
110703
Post by: Galas
I'm glad to see a Codex that can use vehicles to great effect without those vehicles having invulnerable saves everywhere. I like my meltas to be usefull.
They where relatively usefull vs Leman Russes but wounding on 4+ with a single shot was very unreliable.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Daedalus81 wrote: Marmatag wrote:Your strategies sound great in theory. But it's difficult to kill blobs of 30 boyz. And then if you don't kill them all, it's Green Tide time. And there's more Boyz on the table, or deep striking at your face.
You think you can just maximize all your shooting, but then you remember that you need area denial or they'll deep strike in a bad spot, and you also need to wall against Stormboyz, Meganobz, etc. The new Ere We Go is really, really good.
And seriously terrain is a thing. Killing the last 5 boyz is not easy if the Ork player has a brain and daisy chains them out of LOS.
Orks are a tough matchup. It's winnable, but tough. The game could go either way depending on dice.
I've actually played against the new Ork Codex and a tuned list. Have you?
I find the new Orks to be really brutal in the few games I've had.
With enough shots to clear my weak chaff and then friggin Gorkanauts ramming my front line plus a green tide if I don't finish off a unit...
I predict meltas are about to become really popular. Also, more durable chaff - I think i'm going to start using spawn as deepstrike zone spreaders.
Agree. They have a lot of tools and there is more than one build. I played against a list that had no vehicles, but was still very devastating. I've also seen lists with T8 vehicles to absord overwatch and help get things stuck in. Meganobz are *nasty*.
|
|
