Thank Gork and Mork that I am transitioning into a more friendly gaming group. My last one (regrettably with some good friends) is starting to become more cutthroat, with IG gunline, Ynnari with SHV, SerpentSpam and StormRoboute all against my Orks.
As dirty as they are there is a fair bit of variety in there (Stormravens aside).
- RG, Flyers, and Dreads
- All Knights
- Conscripts and 6 manticores
-Barges and wraiths //no idea how this guy will kill flyers
- typical Harlequin fusion pistol madness //smite smite smite!
- Dark Angel flyer madness
- another RG raven list
- a gakload of tau commanders (not fusion) with kroot and drones
- Horrors and nurgle DPs - BA raven spam
- Devastators, RG, and RBs - Ghaz, 120 boys, 40 stormboyz, 20 lootas!
- 150 boyz and 8 weirdboyz
These would be fun matchups to watch and it will be interesting to see who comes out on top!
I can only imagine how many unpainted Stormravens will be there. The money spent to stay on top...good grief. Can't say i'll be sad when they get a point increase.
One thing I'm noticing is how the "Imperium" designation is going to make stat-tracking hard (though at least for this, them publishing the full list helps with that).
For example, "Imperium" that consists entirely of Ultramarines, except for one Sisters of Silence squad. Or one that consists entirely of Blood Angels, except for one or two assassins.
So we've got lots of stormravens (usually backed by scouts I notice). After that, I saw demons, imperial guard, and eldar of all things relying on lots of cheap chaff (brimstone horrors, conscripts, and razorwing flocks respectively), with big models to back them up. Lots of demon princes and IG artillery, though the eldar lists look a bit more varied. I don't see a lot of harlequins despite having placed well in other tournaments.
It's nice to see sisters getting some representation as well.
I like that there's some variety even in the same kinds of lists. Even amongst the birdspam lists, there seems like a number of approaches to the concept. Should be interesting.
There is a list with 55 snipers and RG backed up by ravens. I'm not sure the all knight lists are going to have a good time considering they won't be able to shoot stormravens fast enough.
Many AM players seem to agree that psyker spam is the way to go. Can't blame them, 14 smites per turn is going to bring down at least one stormraven and probably damage another, as long as you can get them in range.
Adding up all the cost of those stormravens, holy moly :O
But, I'm not surprised. The amount spent on drop pods last edition was stupid, and now it's stormravens. Have fun when GW (rightly) adjust them to promote "diversity"! However, while most lists are pure WAAC, there's a few brilliantly silly lists in there that are guaranteed to raise a laugh when you see it.
Freddy Kruger wrote: The amount spent on drop pods last edition was stupid, and now it's stormravens. Have fun when GW (rightly) adjust them to promote "diversity"!
Yeah, this is what's interesting to me.
40K players haven't adapted yet to the video game type living ruleset we now have. Dumping a few hundred bucks on he current FotM is no longer a safe bet as those FotM lists are literally flavor of the month. As in, GW may release a FAQ in a month that doubles the cost of whatever model you just splurged on.
I'm interested in seeing how the competitive gamers will react to how quickly the meta can change now.
Just a cursory glance at the numbers and noticed some silly things.
25 Chaos players. 4 of those chaos were Knights, other was mixed chaos. Leaving 20 that contained Brimstones. In these 20 armies, there were 175 units that contained Brimstone Horrors. Total of 2,675 Brimstone Horror models. By 20 people. This averaged 133.75 brimstones per player that was playing them (obviously not everyone had that many, some had way more, some less). At 10 models per box, that's 268 boxes of models (sorry blues, you're not as needed as the brims) at $35 USD per box, making those models cost $9,380 retail, and representing 5,350 points of models.
The stormravens are more silly. There were 206 of them across a large number of armies. At $82.50 each, that's a whopping $16,995 worth of ravens
ross-128 wrote: One thing I'm noticing is how the "Imperium" designation is going to make stat-tracking hard (though at least for this, them publishing the full list helps with that).
For example, "Imperium" that consists entirely of Ultramarines, except for one Sisters of Silence squad. Or one that consists entirely of Blood Angels, except for one or two assassins.
There probably should be a generic "Imperium" Category (Maybe "Marines" as well) and a generic "Eldar", all the others are stand alone factions?
Nice to see plenty of Sisters - well St C and the twins at least
Mulletdude wrote: At 10 models per box, that's 268 boxes of models (sorry blues, you're not as needed as the brims) at $35 USD per box, making those models cost $9,380 retail, and representing 5,350 points of models.
Isn't the ETC pretty notorious for players fielding tons of proxies?
That famous picture of the DE vs. TAU battle had only CMON murder of crowz as razorwing on it ...
Mulletdude wrote: At 10 models per box, that's 268 boxes of models (sorry blues, you're not as needed as the brims) at $35 USD per box, making those models cost $9,380 retail, and representing 5,350 points of models.
Isn't the ETC pretty notorious for players fielding tons of proxies?
That famous picture of the DE vs. TAU battle had only CMON murder of crowz as razorwing on it ...
well yeah.. 16.50 for a single flock of birds (when 3 min is required) for 1pl is absurd. And its resin garbage to boot :/
If anyone needs more reason not to attend a tournament, here ya go.
I get it, and I'm glad that people with this amount of silliness have a place where they can play like-minded players, but I can't fathom the boredom of playing that many spam lists. Power be damned, I just can't stand
HQ 1
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
Heavy Support 1
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
Elbows wrote: If anyone needs more reason not to attend a tournament, here ya go.
I get it, and I'm glad that people with this amount of silliness have a place where they can play like-minded players, but I can't fathom the boredom of playing that many spam lists. Power be damned, I just can't stand
HQ 1
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
Heavy Support 1
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
(Repeat)
etc. Jesus Christ that's boring, lol.
Agreed. I know it's billed as the world's premier 40k tournament (And possibly the same for FoW too) but I just don't get it. Why go to all the hassle of flying out to another country, taking time off work, not to mention the expense, to end up playing...that? Maybe it's a great weekend away with lots of drinking and meeting with friends, but if you have to play a bunch of games against that crap just to enjoy yourself later I don't see the appeal.
It's about designing the best list and making correct decisions in the game, much like a card game in those respects. It's not about what the models represent in a fluffy sense, it's just competition. Not everyone's cup of tea.
It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with, so of course you'll bring the most cutthroat list you can and save the fun lists for local/single player tournaments where the only thing at stake is your individual investments, not the time and money of 7++ other people who want to play extremely competitive. really don't get why people act surprised and salty at seeing spam lists in such a setting.
Yes they are. And they are. Heavy competition is engaging. It's not fun when some whacko gets pissy during a game, but that happens outside tournaments, too.
GrafWattenburg wrote: It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with
"Privilege" is not the word I'd use to be playing against the people who field these lists. It's like collecting one of the worst aspects of the hobby in a single room. You couldn't pay me to take part in that tournament.
GrafWattenburg wrote: It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with
"Privilege" is not the word I'd use to be playing against the people who field these lists. It's like collecting one of the worst aspects of the hobby in a single room. You couldn't pay me to take part in that tournament.
It's not for everyone.
I also wouldn't want to play in this tournament, but it's good to see what lists are considered "the most competitive."
Basically you aren't seeing space marines without storm ravens. You could claim they're OP, or you could say that virtually everything else in the codex is overpriced garbage, which is true.
One drop pod, lol. That specific model was nerfed so hard into the ground, it's ridiculous.
GrafWattenburg wrote: It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with
"Privilege" is not the word I'd use to be playing against the people who field these lists. It's like collecting one of the worst aspects of the hobby in a single room. You couldn't pay me to take part in that tournament.
that's fair enough that you don't like it, that's why you don't try to get on your country's team, but I think it's silly when people bash the ones who enjoy cutthroat competition. Nobody is forcing you to attend several tournaments a year with competitive lists to place well enough to perhaps be invited to your national team. Think of it like sports; I enjoy kicking a ball around with my kid but would have an awful time on a premier league team, hence I'm not aiming to join one and they don't try to recruit me
Oddly, they've decided that an Autarch's Forceshield ability must be paid for as wargear, despite the fact that even after an FAQ he can't get one (Page 74, 125).
Also, there is a distinct lack of Wraithguard in the Eldar lists.
Hemlock spams aplenty. Feth those guys.
Wave Serpent spam, as expected. Allowed by Guardian spam, but probably not for the Guardian's benefit.
They should make tournaments fun. Like... your opponent has to build your list, and you theirs. Or award 4x the points outcome for any underdog/under strength army.
ncshooter426 wrote: They should make tournaments fun. Like... your opponent has to build your list, and you theirs. Or award 4x the points outcome for any underdog/under strength army.
"Oops, I only own 4 Hemlock Wraithfighters, and Autarch, 3 units of Guardians, and (coincidentally) 3 Wave Serpents..."
GrafWattenburg wrote: It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with
"Privilege" is not the word I'd use to be playing against the people who field these lists. It's like collecting one of the worst aspects of the hobby in a single room. You couldn't pay me to take part in that tournament.
that's fair enough that you don't like it, that's why you don't try to get on your country's team, but I think it's silly when people bash the ones who enjoy cutthroat competition. Nobody is forcing you to attend several tournaments a year with competitive lists to place well enough to perhaps be invited to your national team. Think of it like sports; I enjoy kicking a ball around with my kid but would have an awful time on a premier league team, hence I'm not aiming to join one and they don't try to recruit me
I wouldn't consider this "cut throat" though because that implies a level of player skill is involved.
I've been playing WMH for the past 5 years and these lists are just spamming whatever is good in a particular faction. Player skill probably matters very little in these games and it just comes down to who can spam the hardest. I won't even pretend that 40k is on the same competitive level as WMH (or that 40k should be played competativly at all) but abusing strong models and awarding the people who play these lists any amount of respect as if they're good players is
something I disagree with.
Elbows wrote: Just wait for the new Primaris Drop Pod (guarantee this'll happen)...that's why they nerfed the old one into obscurity.
Or dreadnoughts PL7 versus the redepmtor at PL10. which is 5 wounds more, but same attacks / armor / S / T AND suffers degradation? AND it's version of the AC is one point of strength weaker? AND it has no smoke launchers?
but abusing strong models and awarding the people who play these lists any amount of respect as if they're good players is
something I disagree with.
Having spent a solid decade powergaming in tournaments and doing well in tournaments based solely on my ability to understand rudimentary elementary mathematics, I agree with you fully.
GrafWattenburg wrote: It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with
"Privilege" is not the word I'd use to be playing against the people who field these lists. It's like collecting one of the worst aspects of the hobby in a single room. You couldn't pay me to take part in that tournament.
that's fair enough that you don't like it, that's why you don't try to get on your country's team, but I think it's silly when people bash the ones who enjoy cutthroat competition. Nobody is forcing you to attend several tournaments a year with competitive lists to place well enough to perhaps be invited to your national team. Think of it like sports; I enjoy kicking a ball around with my kid but would have an awful time on a premier league team, hence I'm not aiming to join one and they don't try to recruit me
I wouldn't consider this "cut throat" though because that implies a level of player skill is involved.
I've been playing WMH for the past 5 years and these lists are just spamming whatever is good in a particular faction. Player skill probably matters very little in these games and it just comes down to who can spam the hardest. I won't even pretend that 40k is on the same competitive level as WMH (or that 40k should be played competativly at all) but abusing strong models and awarding the people who play these lists any amount of respect as if they're good players is
something I disagree with.
Every game boils down to who can/cannot mathhammer the game. Ultramaulines showed that back in the day and it has essentially snowballed out of control. Just because you think their list building is boring and spammy doesnt mean it is not a good list that is thought out for the current meta. It was the same as the previous few edtions except now we see more factions being taken rather than Tau Spam/Jetbike Spam/Titan Spam/Tzeetch Psyker spam.
Brutallica wrote: Damn turds spamming Stormraven, hope their models break.
As someone who played in CCG tournaments for over 20 years:
It's a tournament, you play to have fun but you also play to win.
This is the exact wrong attitude to have about this matter. Someone shows up in a friendly game running this list and doesn't say beforehand "hey, I'm play testing my army for this event. Mind helping me out?" then, yeah, I can get being upset, but "I hope your models break" is every bit as much "that guy" as the guy who teaches someone to play the game using this exact list against the new player.
GrafWattenburg wrote: It's not a standard tournament where you just sign up, bring something fun and have beers with your mates. You have to be invited to your national team, so you're one of 8 people in your whole country to have the privilege to even attend the event to begin with
"Privilege" is not the word I'd use to be playing against the people who field these lists. It's like collecting one of the worst aspects of the hobby in a single room. You couldn't pay me to take part in that tournament.
that's fair enough that you don't like it, that's why you don't try to get on your country's team, but I think it's silly when people bash the ones who enjoy cutthroat competition. Nobody is forcing you to attend several tournaments a year with competitive lists to place well enough to perhaps be invited to your national team. Think of it like sports; I enjoy kicking a ball around with my kid but would have an awful time on a premier league team, hence I'm not aiming to join one and they don't try to recruit me
I wouldn't consider this "cut throat" though because that implies a level of player skill is involved.
I've been playing WMH for the past 5 years and these lists are just spamming whatever is good in a particular faction. Player skill probably matters very little in these games and it just comes down to who can spam the hardest. I won't even pretend that 40k is on the same competitive level as WMH (or that 40k should be played competativly at all) but abusing strong models and awarding the people who play these lists any amount of respect as if they're good players is
something I disagree with.
Don't forget that this is a team event. Pairing strategy plays a major role and at times a minor loss is an extremely good result if that allowed your team mates to get favourable pairings.
I would never want to play most of those lists, but it is good that the game has the flexibility to accommodate a breadth of players. The key is that the players who are playing are on the same wavelength, which in the case of the ETC they definitely are.
Rickels wrote: Every game boils down to who can/cannot mathhammer the game.
It... really doesn't. Unless you concede that most of the people advocating mathhammer can't actually mathhammer. Including yourself, more likely than not.
Rickels wrote: Every game boils down to who can/cannot mathhammer the game.
It... really doesn't. Unless you concede that most of the people advocating mathhammer can't actually mathhammer. Including yourself, more likely than not.
Even 40k isn't 100% mathammer. If a game has statistical variables, it can be mathammered. And people who understand the relevant mathammer will be at an advantage, but the more a game can be predicted by mathammer, the less reliant it is on player skill.
Chess is an extremely mathammered game - people have been working out odds of success by strategy for years/decades/centuries. But nobody can actually predict how a game will go because it has a high degree of player skill.
Meanwhile 40k is one of the few games in the world where you can just compare what the opposing players have brought and 6-8 times out of 10 know who will win (last edition 9.99 times out of 10).
40k does see differences between mathammer results and TT effectiveness, but it's so small you may as well just ignore player skill.
Elbows wrote: Not a single person here said they were surprised to see any of the lists. We just said it looks boring as feth to play. There's a large difference.
To be honest though, there are like, a handful of lists in there that look fun and non-spammy - the non-Conscript IG army for example
It's the sort of fun real militaries look for - the systematic destruction of a hapless enemy with utter impunity. Or a close game of "we both brought cheese, oh DEAR LORD!"
Melissia wrote: lol, "everything in the marine codex is overpriced garbage"
Goddamn man, I can't even.
Well, considering how little diversity in the marine armies we see, it's clear both that the storm raven is very competitive, and everything that isn't a storm raven also isn't. That's generally how you tell the difference from an upper tier army and an army with an overpowered unit. If the army as a whole tends to be really good, you'll see numerous builds for it. If one or two units are good, you'll just see those with support, possibly support from other armies this edition.
So yeah, we can conclude spacemarines aren't that great, but the storm raven is. Just like we can conclude demons aren't amazing atm, but brimstone horrors and demon princes are both excellent units.
SilverAlien wrote: Well, considering how little diversity in the marine armies we see, it's clear both that the storm raven is very competitive, and everything that isn't a storm raven also isn't.
Or that space marine players just have no imagination (who'da thunkit?), or that people just want to play with their new toys, or they saw the gimmicky list and want to try it out themselves.
I maintain that it is sad and hilarious how quick people are to jump from "THIS THING THIS MARINE CHAPTER IS GETTING IS SO OP!" in one thread to "POUR SPESS MARNIES GEE DUBZ NEVAR GIBS SPESH MRAINES ANYTIHNG GUD!" at the slightest provocation.
There is no real difference between 2 competitive players playing a game - both understanding beforehand it's going to be competitive - and a more casual game between 2 people. Fun can be had either way, and in fact I find the hobby much more interesting to play BOTH types of games/players. The NPE only comes in when 2 people aren't on the same page. I don't understand why people freak out about hard lists going to tournaments where you're expected to bring hard lists. I guarantee you most of these players are great opponents and fun to play against.
SilverAlien wrote: Well, considering how little diversity in the marine armies we see, it's clear both that the storm raven is very competitive, and everything that isn't a storm raven also isn't.
Or that space marine players just have no imagination (who'da thunkit?), or that people just want to play with their new toys, or they saw the gimmicky list and want to try it out themselves.
I maintain that it is sad and hilarious how quick people are to jump from "THIS THING THIS MARINE CHAPTER IS GETTING IS SO OP!" in one thread to "POUR SPESS MARNIES GEE DUBZ NEVAR GIBS SPESH MRAINES ANYTIHNG GUD!" at the slightest provocation.
Yea I have a hard time believing marine players actually sat down and discussed the topic of "how do we beat the stormraven list everyone is going to take" in the scant few weeks it was revealed. The logic was instead - this gak works and doesn't require any planning so let's go with it!
You can spot the people who did think about it in the Xenos lists and those who seem totally clueless to what is coming. That said there are a handful of marine lists that went a different, but predictable way.
Meanwhile 40k is one of the few games in the world where you can just compare what the opposing players have brought and 6-8 times out of 10 know who will win (last edition 9.99 times out of 10).
40k does see differences between mathammer results and TT effectiveness, but it's so small you may as well just ignore player skill.
False equivalence. Chess brings the same pieces every time. If someone brings a weak list then OF COURSE you can tell who will win. If there hasn't been enough time to learn to play against Stormravens then OF COURSE they're bound to win.
Melissia wrote: Or that space marine players just have no imagination (who'da thunkit?), or that people just want to play with their new toys, or they saw the gimmicky list and want to try it out themselves.
I maintain that it is sad and hilarious how quick people are to jump from "THIS THING THIS MARINE CHAPTER IS GETTING IS SO OP!" in one thread to "POUR SPESS MARNIES GEE DUBZ NEVAR GIBS SPESH MRAINES ANYTIHNG GUD!" at the slightest provocation.
Because this a hyper competitive tournament and that's not really how hyper competitive players think? You don't go to something like ETC on a whim, and if you do go it is with a list you think will do well.
It's not hard to tell what works for space marines: the stromraven or darkshround, along with razorbacks sitting in one of the reroll auras. One or both of those are the keystones of most space marine lists at a glance.
Daemon Princes and brimstone horrors are the keystones for chaos. Conscripts plus artillery or primaris psykers are keystones for guard. There is some variation within it, but it's not ahrd to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yea I have a hard time believing marine players actually sat down and discussed the topic of "how do we beat the stormraven list everyone is going to take" in the scant few weeks it was revealed. The logic was instead - this gak works and doesn't require any planning so let's go with it!
You can spot the people who did think about it in the Xenos lists and those who seem totally clueless to what is coming. That said there are a handful of marine lists that went a different, but predictable way.
"since it was revealed" okay, gonna stop you there.
1. The longest period any of them have had is since the indices were out/leaked, so it sin't like a month ago was that long
2. You are assuming that one guy noticed gunships were really good and everyone copied that person. Then why do we see other, repeated lists that didn't win smaller tournaments? These are really good players who spend obsessive amounts of time with the game, they are capable of breaking down what does and doesn't work.
3. This whole"all space marine players are bad lol" shtick is annoying enough to begin with, but using it against ETC players (who are virtually guaranteed to be infinitely better the the person posting how dumb they are) is just moronic.
SilverAlien wrote: Because this a hyper competitive tournament and that's not really how hyper competitive players think?
Aww, the armchair psychology is adorable.
Actually, there's a lot of "hyper-competitive" players who think "okay, this guy won with X, so I should take X". It's quite well known that people will imitate those they perceive as "winners".
When someone wins with something, others copy or try to copy that something. That's human nature.
Wow that's a lot of Razorwing Flocks. Geez they have to fix that unit. Also kind of sad no one is playing Craftworld or stock Harlequins - it's all Ynnari.
Actually, there's a lot of "hyper-competitive" players who think "okay, this guy won with X, so I should take X". It's quite well known that people will imitate those they perceive as "winners".
When someone wins with something, others copy or try to copy that something. That's human nature.
So that's we see so many duplicates of that ork list that won a tournament, right?
Actually, there's a lot of "hyper-competitive" players who think "okay, this guy won with X, so I should take X". It's quite well known that people will imitate those they perceive as "winners".
When someone wins with something, others copy or try to copy that something. That's human nature.
So that's we see so many duplicates of that ork list that won a tournament, right?
Not necessarily but it is why Metas exist.
It's why we saw the same damn Ad-Mech lists through 7th.
It's why the top tier MtG decks are all X, Y or Z.
It's why top tier Hearthstone decks are X, Y or Z.
It's why MOBA characters tend to have set build paths.
If it works people will play it - and when people manage to break it then everyone will migrate over to the next big thing.
With 40k it's a bit more straightforward.
SM armies are ridiculously common - moreso than Orks. So if a SM army with unit X wins the tournament chances are across multiple armies people will be able to source enough of X to replicate it (cause I bet a quarter of these Stormraven spams have different coloured Stormravens floating about from 2-3 different armies). IG Conscripts are easily substituted by normal Guardsmen - another example.
The Razor-birb spam comes from the fact that the Beast-Council was one of the stronger DE builds last edition so, plenty of birbs - plus people will probably have skimped to spread the swarms out as far as possible - like when Nurglings used to be 9 per swarm and most people put 3 per base instead.
Meanwhile 40k is one of the few games in the world where you can just compare what the opposing players have brought and 6-8 times out of 10 know who will win (last edition 9.99 times out of 10).
40k does see differences between mathammer results and TT effectiveness, but it's so small you may as well just ignore player skill.
False equivalence. Chess brings the same pieces every time. If someone brings a weak list then OF COURSE you can tell who will win. If there hasn't been enough time to learn to play against Stormravens then OF COURSE they're bound to win.
Un-false equivalence, though I see how I got misinterpreted. 40k games are predictable. Almost down to a turn by turn level. Chess is not. Take both games at their startpoints. In chess, players have favoured strategies and counter strategies. You can get an idea of how this might play out, but you wouldn't want to bet on it.
40k players don't have the luxury of favoured anythings, and have differing armies. One is predictable, the other is not.
Or we can look at a hypothetically balanced wargame. The basic fact is that player skill in wargames is a somewhat unquantifiable variable. The less skill factors in, the more predictable it is.
It's why we saw the same damn Ad-Mech lists through 7th.
It's why the top tier MtG decks are all X, Y or Z.
It's why top tier Hearthstone decks are X, Y or Z.
It's why MOBA characters tend to have set build paths.
If it works people will play it - and when people manage to break it then everyone will migrate over to the next big thing.
With 40k it's a bit more straightforward
Are we still talking about ETC? The way pairing and team play works is basically a more complicated version of picking and banning from MOBA's, List composition is basically building the 8 strongest armies you can, usually split across a few roles, with limited crossover between armies. The lists you'd use wouldn't even necessarily be good lists for a normal tournament, because most of lists for ETC will be highly specialized.
Yeah, team tournaments aren't just about doing list to kill. You need to have offensive lists that score points, defensive list to NEGATE points to the other teams, etc...
I don't think SPace Marines are Garbage. No way. The Stormraven is just OP. The Space Marine codex in general (Barring other units like Guillimand, Whirmilrds, etc...) are mid tier, so very balanced.
Is a competitive tournament. Why should I bring a "mid tier" or even a good tier army build when I can just spam the OP unit?
Galas wrote: Yeah, team tournaments aren't just about doing list to kill. You need to have offensive lists that score points, defensive list to NEGATE points to the other teams, etc...
I don't think SPace Marines are Garbage. No way. The Stormraven is just OP. The Space Marine codex in general (Barring other units like Guillimand, Whirmilrds, etc...) are mid tier, so very balanced.
Is a competitive tournament. Why should I bring a "mid tier" or even a good tier army build when I can just spam the OP unit?
Okay well that all Wraiths with 4 ccb list make a little more sense now.
ncshooter426 wrote: They should make tournaments fun. Like... your opponent has to build your list, and you theirs. Or award 4x the points outcome for any underdog/under strength army.
"Oops, I only own 4 Hemlock Wraithfighters, and Autarch, 3 units of Guardians, and (coincidentally) 3 Wave Serpents..."
That's why each round has a sealed scenario, which set mandatory requirements for each side. Failure to bring enough to cover means you auto lose. Or, for fun - roll off before the fight starts. Whomever has the highest has the option of swapping armies for that fight. Ohhh... howabout rolling per turn to see if warp storms interrupted your ability to do ANYTHING that round (aka lose a round).
Randomized events are fun, and counter the hell out of cheesy things.
Or switch to a battle value system determined by the TO before hand.
Or make matched play actually that - per-determined armies of equal (actual) combat effectiveness. Each player takes command and must fight it out.
Std. Tourney layouts is why very few actually give a gak about them. Points systems can always be abused, especially in GW based games.
I will say this: if the ETC results end up turning the hype/panic over IG and Sisters into a bandwagon, I hope this at least leads to GW releasing some new model lines for them.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Funny, that seems to work fine in AoS.
Explain.
Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Non-randomized events that cause you to auto lose are even worse, such as showing up to an event and facing off against an army that counters everything your army does.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Non-randomized events that cause you to auto lose are even worse, such as showing up to an event and facing off against an army that counters everything your army does.
Well that is sort of random, or at least unpredictable. Either that or you just made poor decisions when designing your army.
I feel you need to strike a balance between randomness, player skill, and army powers.
It should not be the case that a game should have an obvious victor from the start, unless one player is either an idiot, or trying to lose.
Having something unpredictable in the middle of a game is not necessarily a bad way to help us get there. For example, Blood Bowl. While not a particularly balanced, fair, or even consistent game, player skill and weighing the odds are made fairly important by the fact that at any moment reality might gak on you. Sometimes a game needs something systemic to react to.
ncshooter426 wrote: Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Trying to compensate for potential randomness maybe involve player skill and tactics, but it does not mean it makes a game more tactically driven or skillful, because randomness can screw you over. AoS is easier and less skillful, because random chance plays a proportionally larger role. It's like adding one part skill to three parts random chance, you have technically added more opportunities for skill to matter, but the game overall is now more determined by luck than it previously was.
Blood bowl is the classic example of this. Requires more input mid game than most GW properties, but random chance is such a huge factor that it's impossible to say it's all but impossible to say it's a more skillful game than most.
ncshooter426 wrote: Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Trying to compensate for potential randomness maybe involve player skill and tactics, but it does not mean it makes a game more tactically driven or skillful, because randomness can screw you over. AoS is easier and less skillful, because random chance plays a proportionally larger role. It's like adding one part skill to three parts random chance, you have technically added more opportunities for skill to matter, but the game overall is now more determined by luck than it previously was.
Blood bowl is the classic example of this. Requires more input mid game than most GW properties, but random chance is such a huge factor that it's impossible to say it's all but impossible to say it's a more skillful game than most.
Randomness and skill are not mutually exclusive. Yes, more randomness means that the better player has a lower winrate vs an inferior player, but the skill-cap can still be very high. The typical example is poker, without a doubt a random game but with a huge skillcap. A physically limited game like Warhammer needs to be quite random in order to support local gaming circles. Small player pool in an area means that there is no way to match players with other players of equal skill, bad (and un-competitive) players are going to need free wins in order to protect their egos or they might just stop playing.
sossen wrote: Randomness and skill are not mutually exclusive. Yes, more randomness means that the better player has a lower winrate vs an inferior player, but the skill-cap can still be very high. The typical example is poker, without a doubt a random game but with a huge skillcap. A physically limited game like Warhammer needs to be quite random in order to support local gaming circles. Small player pool in an area means that there is no way to match players with other players of equal skill, bad (and un-competitive) players are going to need free wins in order to protect their egos or they might just stop playing.
I agree they aren't mutually exclusive, I even made the point that one game can require more skill than another, even if that same games result is determined more by luck than skill. I just think AoS is a game where the randomness tends to weigh heavier overall than 40K currently.
As far as the need for randomness, that's also solved by most long term players having a fairly garbage "for fun" army or army build they can break out as needed. If you play with people who won't do that... well warhammer is also a social game, and you can't really compensate for having a less than pleasant group of players.
ncshooter426 wrote: Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Trying to compensate for potential randomness maybe involve player skill and tactics, but it does not mean it makes a game more tactically driven or skillful, because randomness can screw you over. AoS is easier and less skillful, because random chance plays a proportionally larger role. It's like adding one part skill to three parts random chance, you have technically added more opportunities for skill to matter, but the game overall is now more determined by luck than it previously was.
Blood bowl is the classic example of this. Requires more input mid game than most GW properties, but random chance is such a huge factor that it's impossible to say it's all but impossible to say it's a more skillful game than most.
Having played both, movement and weapon choice are far larger of a concern than 40K. AoS has reduction of blob strength as it dies off - something that would have curbed the conscript issue right out. Basically, I think it's a better game system overall - but at least some elements were carried over to 40K. Randomness makes it interesting, makes it better.
In reality - there is nothing really deep tactically about either system. Trade off for being fun I suppose.
Pretty sure the chance of a random double-turn wouldn't work well in 40k. Do you really want a Tau (or even Imperial Guard) gunline to get a double-turn early in the game, when most of their guns are still on the field?
Also, even an AoS style double-turn is significantly different than straight-up losing your turn to a roll. At least in AoS, for that to happen the person getting the double-turn had to have already gone second, meaning you've already got at least one turn against them. But if you can just straight lose a turn, what if you lose your first turn? The enemy would get to alpha-strike you with a full-strength army twice, for most armies that'd end the game on the spot.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Non-randomized events that cause you to auto lose are even worse, such as showing up to an event and facing off against an army that counters everything your army does.
That's when you realize that you did a bad job writing your list, and write a better one next time.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Funny, that seems to work fine in AoS.
Explain.
Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
40k has enough shooting that a double turn would be utterly disastrous. It "works" in a melee driven game like AoS. Not in 40k.
So what I'm seeing here is a discussion on "concerns about" and "arguments for" random events. I think it would be easier to argue about potential events than just the hypothetical concept;
- At the end of each game turn, roll 2D6 (or maybe 3D6, for variety's sake) and consult a chart
- Several possible results do nothing
- One result is select D3 units for each army, those units (chosen by opposing player) are hit by meteors / falling debris / warp rifts
- One result is whichever player has the least amount of points left on the field gets to respawn a quantity of their army
- One result is one randomly selected item of terrain or objective collapses / detonates / vanishes with a KRAK
Selym wrote: So what I'm seeing here is a discussion on "concerns about" and "arguments for" random events. I think it would be easier to argue about potential events than just the hypothetical concept;
- At the end of each game turn, roll 2D6 (or maybe 3D6, for variety's sake) and consult a chart
- Several possible results do nothing
Why do they exist, then?
- One result is select D3 units for each army, those units (chosen by opposing player) are hit by meteors / falling debris / warp rifts
So, through no fault of my own, even if I am playing perfectly, I am penalized by losing units because I rolled the wrong result on a chart?
- One result is whichever player has the least amount of points left on the field gets to respawn a quantity of their army
So, the effort I expended to remove a portion of their army is rendered null, because I rolled the wrong result on a chart. The game is now unbalanced, because my opponent gets (X + Y) points, and I only get my starting X.
- One result is one randomly selected item of terrain or objective collapses / detonates / vanishes with a KRAK
So, I or my opponent loses victory points because the table says so? Say, an objective I'm holding disappears on turn 4, and I lose the game because I rolled the wrong result.
Selym wrote: So what I'm seeing here is a discussion on "concerns about" and "arguments for" random events. I think it would be easier to argue about potential events than just the hypothetical concept;
- At the end of each game turn, roll 2D6 (or maybe 3D6, for variety's sake) and consult a chart
- Several possible results do nothing
Why do they exist, then? Because it's not supposed to be guaranteed that something will happen every turn.
- One result is select D3 units for each army, those units (chosen by opposing player) are hit by meteors / falling debris / warp rifts
So, through no fault of my own, even if I am playing perfectly, I am penalized by losing units because I rolled the wrong result on a chart? Both players get hit, and it is triggered on a game turn. If you're close to causing a tabling this could have the potential to finish them off. It should also help actually *discourage* tabling, as players should be less likely to risk their units in high-risk high-reward scenarios (such as deepstriking),
because it could leave them with too few units to survive one of these. I also have not specified the quantity of damage, so it could be anywhere from "annoying" to "deadly".
- One result is whichever player has the least amount of points left on the field gets to respawn a quantity of their army
So, the effort I expended to remove a portion of their army is rendered null, because I rolled the wrong result on a chart. The game is now unbalanced, because my opponent gets (X + Y) points, and I only get my starting X. Intended to balance out a clear looser so that they actually have a chance to fight back. Makes games not constantly end in a tabling if this occurs. Unless you measure fun by how many tablings you caused in a day, this is far from the end of the world.
- One result is one randomly selected item of terrain or objective collapses / detonates / vanishes with a KRAK
So, I or my opponent loses victory points because the table says so? Say, an objective I'm holding disappears on turn 4, and I lose the game because I rolled the wrong result. Isn't it possible to score points mid-game while sitting on an objective? Eh. This list is a set of possibilities to discuss the merits or lack thereof in having a random event system.
One thing to remember is that the whole point of a random event system is to have players play more conservatively, due to not knowing when reality will gak on them (as per the 40k universe).
No, it isn't. Points are only gained at the end, unless you're playing Maelstrom, which is its own special kind of bad.
Why are you penalizing people for playing well and doing damage to their opponent's army? High-risk high-reward things are already high-risk enough, they don't need more risk. If I'm better than my opponent, I deserve the win.
Verviedi wrote: No, it isn't. Points are only gained at the end, unless you're playing Maelstrom, which is its own special kind of bad.
Why are you penalizing people for playing well and doing damage to their opponent's army? High-risk high-reward things are already high-risk enough, they don't need more risk. If I'm better than my opponent, I deserve the win.
Sure, in a game where skill actually mattered. But this is 40k, sadly. As previously established in the thread, 40k games are pretty unbalanced at the army level.
That and they are expendable discussion points. I'm not trying to penalize skillful players. Spent five minutes trying to direct the conversation in a useful direction only to encounter someone who seems determined to take the whole thing personally.
Verviedi wrote: The optimal changes to 40k would shift it in the direction of the following composition.
70% skill ingame, 20% skill listbuilding, 10% luck. Right now, it's about 33% all around.
I'm not taking things personally, if that was directed towards me. I'm criticizing your ideas, not being insulted by them.
Criticism's fine, that's what the list is for. It helps to criticise in the third person, to avoid being interpreted as personally offended, though.
I'd put 40k at: 15% In-Game Skill, 10% Luck, 75% Listbuilding. It is really quite hard to "just make" a viable list, especially post 5e. Most of us can conjure up a viable list for one or more different races in about a minute because we've been doing this for years, but workable lists are utterly counter-intuitive and unfluffy. You literally have to make a statistical breakdown of everything, simply because that's what the rest of us do.
As an AdMech player, I can agree. You'd think that our lists would be based on Skitarii and Kataphrons, which our fluff says are spammed in great numbers.
Doesn't matter anymore. New FAQ (as of today) states that Flyer battlefield role units (Stormravens, Avengers, Dakka Jets, etc) and empty Fortifications no longer count for Sudden Death, so if a turn ends and you only have Flyer FOC units on the board? You lose.
Taikishi wrote: Doesn't matter anymore. New FAQ (as of today) states that Flyer battlefield role units (Stormravens, Avengers, Dakka Jets, etc) and empty Fortifications no longer count for Sudden Death, so if a turn ends and you only have Flyer FOC units on the board? You lose.
Yeah, generally that's not going to apply to the tournament. I mean, if they used the FAQ any army list which used razorwing flocks would be over 2000 points, invalid, and therefor instantly lose.
Mr Morden wrote: Are there any lists that would actually be playable if they used the FAQs?
Conscript and brimstone horror spam lists would be fine. I actually think a few of the stormraven lists would be as well. As well as the oddball sister/ork list I think I saw a couple of.
I'm quite sold on Northern Irelands AdMech list. It's focusing on onagers and kastellans. Can it make the cut in a highly competitive environment?...or is it a bit too soft?
rollawaythestone wrote: Wow that's a lot of Razorwing Flocks. Geez they have to fix that unit. Also kind of sad no one is playing Craftworld or stock Harlequins - it's all Ynnari.
Guess why?
Lists with dozens of Razorwing Flocks are a bit unreal. They shouldnt allow proxies.
Spoiler:
ARMY FACTION: Ynnari + TOTAL COMMAND POINTS: 6 + TOTAL ARMY POINTS: 1986 + ARMY FACTIONS USED: Ynnari, Drukhari, Harlequins, Asuryani + TOTAL REINFORCEMENT POINTS: not applicable
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
== Vanguard detachment == Ynnari – (744 pts) +1 CP HQ1: Shadowseer (134), Neuro disruptor (10) (Mirror of minds) [144pts]
Elites1: Beastmaster (56), Power sword (4) (Combat Drug: Splintermind) [60pts] WAR-LORD – (Inspiring leader)
Elites2: Beastmaster (56), Power sword (4) (Combat Drug: Hypex) [60pts]
Elites3: Beastmaster (56), Power sword (4) (Combat Drug: Grave Lotus) [60pts]
Fast1: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast2: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast3: (unlocked by beastmaster) 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast4: (unlocked by beastmaster) 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast5: (unlocked by beastmaster) 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
== Outrider detachment == Ynnari (636 pts) +1 CP HQ2: Yvraine (Gaze of ynnead, Word of the phoenix) [132pts]
Fast6: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast7: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast8: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast9: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast10: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast11: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
== Supreme command detachment == Ynnari (616 pts) +1 CP HQ3: Yncarne (Ancestors grace, word of the phoenix) [337pts]
HQ2: Maugan Ra [159pts]
HQ3: Farseer (Doom, Fortune) (106), singing spear (14) [120pts]
ARMY REINFORCEMENT POINTS: 0 ARMY REINFORCEMENT FACTION: NONE
Does anyone know of ETC is ignoring the FAQ, or is there a last minute scramble to have every team fix their lists in line of the changes to flyers, razorwings, and Ynnari?
djones520 wrote: Does anyone know of ETC is ignoring the FAQ, or is there a last minute scramble to have every team fix their lists in line of the changes to flyers, razorwings, and Ynnari?
I think they had a deadline which was before the release of the FAQ.
My guess would be that they are not going to apply the FAQ since the lists have already been submitted. If they did, several lists would actually be illegal and asking players to change them isn't fair or even practical
It's the sort of fun real militaries look for - the systematic destruction of a hapless enemy with utter impunity. Or a close game of "we both brought cheese, oh DEAR LORD!"
Randomness and skill are not mutually exclusive. Yes, more randomness means that the better player has a lower winrate vs an inferior player, but the skill-cap can still be very high. The typical example is poker, without a doubt a random game but with a huge skillcap. A physically limited game like Warhammer needs to be quite random in order to support local gaming circles. Small player pool in an area means that there is no way to match players with other players of equal skill, bad (and un-competitive) players are going to need free wins in order to protect their egos or they might just stop playing. 
