Galas wrote: Orks in second and third place? What?
Yea, I had the same thought. Is it because it isn't ITC? Softer lists?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Usual for one of the Ork lists: 120 boyz, paintboy, tankbustaz, 6 mek gunz, 2 trukz, 2 weirdboyz, mek. He beat out Behemoth nids with a skyshield.
Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.
Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)
I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)
One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.
I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings
Ordana wrote: Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.
Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)
I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)
One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.
I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings
That's a real busted rank system. So for all we know the Ork lists maybe won 2x each and that's it?
Ordana wrote: Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.
Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)
I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)
One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.
I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings
That's a real busted rank system. So for all we know the Ork lists maybe won 2x each and that's it?
taking 6, 2 and 0. in any combination of 5. How do you get to 26?
Marmatag wrote: 44 units of reapers across 11 Eldar is the definition of softer lists.
That should be 60+ units easily.
And if the games are end of game scoring, Orks would do well, they're the biggest blobs that can just sit on objectives and win.
Personally I would never play in a GW run tournament. Never had a good experience with a GW employee.
Depends if those are evenly spread or if some Eldar took no Dark Reapers at all. And the size of the units, I suppose.
That event, like all big events, gathered to both kind of players, those that come to win and those that only want a nice weekend of gaming.
I expect that out of those 11 Eldar lists, many were of the first kind and had no dark reapers. Let's admit it, they are a really bad model, cost a lot and are made in failcast. You take them only if you really need it to win. Those 44 dark reapers were probably concentrated in 3 or 4 lists.
Remember that Dark Reapers are not OP by definition, used in a casual list they are a risky choice. They become OP when you build a list around them (alaitoc + plenty of psy support).
What i really get out of this, is that balance discussion should be gated between [ITC] or [Non ITC] tags. They are different games.
Marmatag wrote: 44 units of reapers across 11 Eldar is the definition of softer lists.
That should be 60+ units easily.
And if the games are end of game scoring, Orks would do well, they're the biggest blobs that can just sit on objectives and win.
Personally I would never play in a GW run tournament. Never had a good experience with a GW employee.
So you think every eldar is running say 6x10 dark reapers?
Guess LVO 2018 winner list was also soft list then. Only 4 units(which incidentally is what 44 units across 11 eldar lists is average of!).
Interesting. Wasn't LVO marketed as ultimate competition. Yet won by soft list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: I expect that out of those 11 Eldar lists, many were of the first kind and had no dark reapers. Let's admit it, they are a really bad model, cost a lot and are made in failcast. You take them only if you really need it to win. Those 44 dark reapers were probably concentrated in 3 or 4 lists.
4 lists? So 11 units per list? so at minimum 891. Don't think that's exactly optimal way. They are good but they are even nastier when properly supported.
Spoletta wrote: Wait were those 44 units or 44 models? I think they meant 44 models.
Now 44 models would be hyper light. 4 units per eldar army averaging now is very realistic for anything half-competive. 4 models per army would be some seriously soft tournament or all eldars would be shooting themselves to foot en masse.
Spoletta wrote: And there goes my theory about non competitive eldar refusing to use such unhandy models...
How many non-competive anything you expect there to be at tournaments?
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)
Doesn't sound that non-competive. Custodian bike HQ's, guard, celestine...Yeah really non-competive!
Earth127 wrote: I wonder what the Chaos lists were. Cynic in me says all variations on the same theme (superfriends) but I really wonder.
If i remember correctly, there was only a handful of Primarchs at the event - like 3 BobbyGs and only slightly more Magnus'. Few more Mortys on top of that.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Then GW sees this and casually believes the game is nice and balanced.
Citation needed.
Oh wait, they are bringing out rules/points adjustments. Guess that means the opposite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I wonder what the Chaos lists were. Cynic in me says all variations on the same theme (superfriends) but I really wonder.
Winning list was
Death Guard Super Heavy Auxillary
Mortarion
Alpha Legion Battalion (all with mark of Slaanesh)
Daemon Prince + wings + 2 malefic talons
Sorcerer + jump pack + force sword
40 cultists
10 cultists
10 cultists
3 obliterators
3 obliterators
World Eaters Battalion (mark of Khorne)
Dark Apostle
Exalted Champion + power sword
8 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
Rhino
Rhino
6e place (who played the final and lost) was about 90 plague bearers, 3 blight crawlers, 2 drones and a bunch of characters and maybe some plague marines, cant remember exactly.
Not so bad as a winning list. The fact that is isn't just a mindless spam of the best models is already something. You can see that he designed the list with timed threats. "This goes first turn" "this comes turn 2" etc... IMHO, this is a good designed list and worthy of winning the event.
So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
I'm curious why do you think this is ''infinitely better'' than Competitive Eldar lists? This is just a bog standard chaos cultist bomb, has been very popular since the chaos booked dropped. There was in fact tons of this type of list being used at the LVO. In many ways it's exactly the same as competitive Eldar in that it's mixing and matching various optimal traits, and using the most cost efficient units (in this case Alpha Legion/World Eaters and slanesh cultists/oblits) to create a powerful soup, just like the Ynnari lists.
I think GW could look into nerfing soups if they want to shake up the meta because we seem to have Imperial/Chaos and Eldar soups dominating and because of how they interact it makes it difficult to individually balance units. We see that with guardsman being drafted into every imperial army for eg for cheap cps/relics/traits.
sfshilo wrote: This thread is pure toxic folks, knock it off.
Attacking a tourney format because they don't play the way you do is childish at best.
The variety in that top 25 is what you want right? You don't want a format that rewards only one kind of list (Cough Cough LVO)......
Funny you'd think a Nurgle player would actually know what toxic looks like. This has been healthy discussion actually and pointed arguments about the benefits and possible negatives of tourney formats.
Edit: except for the dark reaper posts, Marmatag I really don't see how anything more than 4 units of Dark Reapers is comp.
Eternal war games are not at all fun, and end of game scoring is really, really terrible.
Numerous armies are flat out invalidated by end of game scoring, and horde armies have an absurd advantage (I play a horde army).
If a horde player doesn't play fast and plays a little slow, they can limit at a game to 3 turns easily. No one will be able to push Green Tide off of end-of-game objectives in 3 turns. You just can't do it. And the way eternal war is set up, it's very easy to split with your opponent, or in the case of green tide, obsec one of theirs away easily.
Just because you saw these armies doing well doesn't mean that it's good for the game to play these kinds of missions.
Wayniac wrote: So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
Do we want to encourage 1st turn and gunline importance or not? With even more 1-2 turn games to boot. Is that desirable? What makes ITC meta worse than gunline 1st turn meta?
Wayniac wrote: So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
Do we want to encourage 1st turn and gunline importance or not? With even more 1-2 turn games to boot. Is that desirable? What makes ITC meta worse than gunline 1st turn meta?
Are you claiming the Heat 3 was a gunline first turn meta?
Is that why 2x Chaos was on the final table with hordes of plaguebearers and khorne berzerkers? Why Guard is down, Why Eldar is down and why the kings of first turn gunlines, Orks, are 2-3? (that last one was sarcasm, incase someone tries to claim otherwise).
Wayniac wrote: So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
Do we want to encourage 1st turn and gunline importance or not? With even more 1-2 turn games to boot. Is that desirable? What makes ITC meta worse than gunline 1st turn meta?
Are you claiming the Heat 3 was a gunline first turn meta?
Is that why 2x Chaos was on the final table with hordes of plaguebearers and khorne berzerkers? Why Guard is down, Why Eldar is down and why the kings of first turn gunlines, Orks, are 2-3? (that last one was sarcasm, incase someone tries to claim otherwise).
If you go first with Berzerkers + Oblits you will stomp face like it's going out of style. First turn charges, killer shots at 24"... it's an "i go first and therefore win" kind of list.
Wayniac wrote: So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
Do we want to encourage 1st turn and gunline importance or not? With even more 1-2 turn games to boot. Is that desirable? What makes ITC meta worse than gunline 1st turn meta?
Are you claiming the Heat 3 was a gunline first turn meta?
Is that why 2x Chaos was on the final table with hordes of plaguebearers and khorne berzerkers? Why Guard is down, Why Eldar is down and why the kings of first turn gunlines, Orks, are 2-3? (that last one was sarcasm, incase someone tries to claim otherwise).
In case you missed it the heat didn\t seem to use rulebook missions either! Or since when rulebook scenarios have had mid-game objective scoring rather than end-of-game?
Rulebook scenarios are mess that results in gunlines. They are so bad even GW heat avoided those!
Arachnofiend wrote: Maybe they used the Chapter Approved missions? CA Eternal War missions have progressive scoring and are a hell of a lot better than the BRB missions.
That was my thought. The CA Eternal War missions are not only fun but awesome.
Wayniac wrote: So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
Do we want to encourage 1st turn and gunline importance or not? With even more 1-2 turn games to boot. Is that desirable? What makes ITC meta worse than gunline 1st turn meta?
Are you claiming the Heat 3 was a gunline first turn meta?
Is that why 2x Chaos was on the final table with hordes of plaguebearers and khorne berzerkers? Why Guard is down, Why Eldar is down and why the kings of first turn gunlines, Orks, are 2-3? (that last one was sarcasm, incase someone tries to claim otherwise).
In case you missed it the heat didn\t seem to use rulebook missions either! Or since when rulebook scenarios have had mid-game objective scoring rather than end-of-game?
Rulebook scenarios are mess that results in gunlines. They are so bad even GW heat avoided those!
I like the CA missions other than the one that you need to split your army into thirds. But I like how they have different conditions, such that it seems to encourage more balanced forces since you might get the one where characters can score double, for example.
So, everyone is salty because they don't use the glorious venerated beloved LVO format ? Wow, that's surprising because, for once, this tourney did not favour 1st turn gunline, apparently and helped so called "bad" armies to play correctly.
You complain that eldars are dominating the meta and when they loose you accuse the tourney of being bad ?
It is nice to have different format, showing different results. It brings a bit more diversity into the game.
godardc wrote: So, everyone is salty because they don't use the glorious venerated beloved LVO format ? Wow, that's surprising because, for once, this tourney did not favour 1st turn gunline, apparently and helped so called "bad" armies to play correctly.
You complain that eldars are dominating the meta and when they loose you accuse the tourney of being bad ?
It is nice to have different format, showing different results. It brings a bit more diversity into the game.
It's interesting that this format produced better representation of factions in the top brackets. I would like to see it get tested more to see if it is just a fluke or if it can help mitigate some of the problems that competitive 40k has right now.
Also, even with the changes my faction still has no competitiveness. Hopefully the codex will help that.
It's interesting that this format produced better representation of factions in the top brackets.
Except it didn't, you just swap "Orks" for "Eldar" and it's close to the same thing - Imperial and Chaos are still doing great because they can soup. And you clearly see community bias in the "favorite army" and "favorite game" column. The fact that this was part of the scoring, when it has nothing to do with the actual winner, was pretty comical. All in all this scoring was pretty suspect. Although I do like the thought of rewarding sportsmanship, i'm not sure i would have implemented it in this way.
It's interesting that this format produced better representation of factions in the top brackets.
Except it didn't, you just swap "Orks" for "Eldar" and it's close to the same thing - Imperial and Chaos are still doing great because they can soup. And you clearly see community bias in the "favorite army" and "favorite game" column. The fact that this was part of the scoring, when it has nothing to do with the actual winner, was pretty comical. All in all this scoring was pretty suspect. Although I do like the thought of rewarding sportsmanship, i'm not sure i would have implemented it in this way.
This is why I said I would like to see this format tested more. A single event is not enough to ensure that the format is any good. I feel that some factions may be preferred over others with it, and this would just result in a flip in competitiveness of certain factions, resulting in the same amount of diversity of factions being played. I hope I'm wrong, but we can't know without it being used again. Also, any faction that can soup is automatically in a much better position than those that can't. They just have more choices in what they can play, giving them power. This is probably Games Workshop's biggest screw up with 8th edition.
Wayniac wrote: So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.
So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.
I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?
RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?
Do we want to encourage 1st turn and gunline importance or not? With even more 1-2 turn games to boot. Is that desirable? What makes ITC meta worse than gunline 1st turn meta?
Are you claiming the Heat 3 was a gunline first turn meta?
Is that why 2x Chaos was on the final table with hordes of plaguebearers and khorne berzerkers? Why Guard is down, Why Eldar is down and why the kings of first turn gunlines, Orks, are 2-3? (that last one was sarcasm, incase someone tries to claim otherwise).
If you go first with Berzerkers + Oblits you will stomp face like it's going out of style. First turn charges, killer shots at 24"... it's an "i go first and therefore win" kind of list.
1st turn alpha strikes is a general problem with 8th. It's why so many lists are dependant on infiltrating screens to prevent this. Simple solution would have been to limit deep striking on turn 1 and allow it from turn 2 onwards with a hard limit at end of turn 4 or be slain. At least that way you get a turn of shooting with your army and a chance to counter screens - needs work I know.
Marmatag wrote: Except it didn't, you just swap "Orks" for "Eldar" and it's close to the same thing - Imperial and Chaos are still doing great because they can soup. And you clearly see community bias in the "favorite army" and "favorite game" column. The fact that this was part of the scoring, when it has nothing to do with the actual winner, was pretty comical. All in all this scoring was pretty suspect. Although I do like the thought of rewarding sportsmanship, i'm not sure i would have implemented it in this way.
I don't totally agree with the scoring method, but the favourite game/army bits didn't change a single position that mattered. The top guy won 5 games. The next two won 4 games and drew 1. The pack from 4th to 12th won 4 lost 1. At that point there's an arbitrary split by army/sports points, and an even more arbitrary split by the choice and ordering of tiebreakers, but it doesn't matter since once you're out of the podium places all that you really care about is coming top 40 to qualify for the final and no amount of votes will change that.
It's not an ideal implementation but in this case it didn't change anything meaningfully from going on pure gaming results.
These results are great and almost suggest that Gamesworkshop are balancing for their own CA missions and tournament format, rather than missions and a format that is externally controlled... imagine that!
Whilst soup lists need a bit of a look at, some armies will almost require a soup to function - like Custodes and Imperial Knights.
shakul wrote: These results are great and almost suggest that Gamesworkshop are balancing for their own CA missions and tournament format, rather than missions and a format that is externally controlled... imagine that!
Whilst soup lists need a bit of a look at, some armies will almost require a soup to function - like Custodes and Imperial Knights.
Well gee of course scenarios alter. Another question is is GW meta somehow better. GW being GW answer is no. And are much less likely to get anywhere close where all factions would have even decent chance.
shakul wrote: These results are great and almost suggest that Gamesworkshop are balancing for their own CA missions and tournament format, rather than missions and a format that is externally controlled... imagine that!
Whilst soup lists need a bit of a look at, some armies will almost require a soup to function - like Custodes and Imperial Knights.
Well gee of course scenarios alter. Another question is is GW meta somehow better. GW being GW answer is no. And are much less likely to get anywhere close where all factions would have even decent chance.
You mean a decent chance as in factions without a Codex (Orks) featuring in the top 3 results for the tournament, and even a Tau list making it through to the Finals as one of the top 40. Compared to the LVO results where 5 of the final 8 were all the same list, and almost identical lists being played in the final?
4 of the top 8 from these results are Chaos but having watched the stream the 2 lists in the Chaos vs Chaos were vastly differen (one being the Morty list the other being Plague Bearer Spam with Epidemius). "Better" is a subjective word but if the GW balancing for their own tournaments brings out more variety in that scene then I'd call that "better".
The book eternal war missions are pretty crappy. Chapter approved's ones are quite good, again barring the one that tells you to split your force into three parts and randomly determine which starts on the table.
Although having look a little closer at them two of them still use end of game scoring while the other ones use end of turn scoring.
Wayniac wrote: The book eternal war missions are pretty crappy. Chapter approved's ones are quite good, again barring the one that tells you to split your force into three parts and randomly determine which starts on the table.
Although having look a little closer at them two of them still use end of game scoring while the other ones use end of turn scoring.
The thing is, having the variety of possibilities from CA in the mission selection at a tournament means that you are forced to adapt to the situatiuon and accommodate for both situations. That is a good thing. The CA missions are quite excellent.
Tailored missions tailors lists. I always try to remind people about that when talking about tournament lists and just b.c a list is strong in 1 format doesnt mean it is best in another.
Always remember when playing build to fit the format. BRB missions are completely different and many locals still play BRB missions, so when they see LVO/ITC lists that doesnt mean they are good for your local/missions.
I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
I think the thing with LVO is that, since you have more control over your objectives, it's easier (and in fact intended) to game the system. I'm not sure how to explain it if you've not read them, but a huge part of the game is choosing the correct objectives each mission to make victory easier. To some, this sounds like "gaming the system", but it's fair because everyone can do it. The downside is, of course, that it takes skill out of the players hands in terms of tactics and more into player's hands in terms of list and strategy.
I know I'll get a lot of flak for this, but let's take the example "Recon". It's a 2018 ITC secondary objective that simply states "you get one point at the end of your turn if you have a model in each table quarter". Simples. To some, that's a very tactical objective, because there's play and counterplay in preventing the opponent from getting to a table quarter, etc.
Except not really, because if they designed their army to get Recon, there's no real counterplay. They score it at the end of their turn, and in the opponent's turn, your units don't get to move or react at all if your opponent doesn't want them to. You can set up to kill them next turn, but aside from flooding the entire space with bodies, there's not much to be done about it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
True they didn't seem to modify it as much. It still seemed really different when I watched some LVO test games for Vegas. But fair point!
On front about Reece, it is a pretty hard accusation and I'm not sure I fully believe it myself. It was from a particularly whiny Tau player to be fair lol.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
I think it's largely based on his public comments regarding Grey Knights and other elite armies, which basically boiled down to "you aren't meant to stand alone like other Codex armies, go buy some Guard".
Followed up by him publishing an article for GW which can be summed up as: "I love Guard! "
Unit1126PLL wrote: I am very happy that there are alt-format tournaments that are looking good.
ITC isn't bad and is fun to play (I do it fairly routinely) but it's apparent that GW is also trying to make a good tournament format. Time will tell which is best, as I think we don't have enough data to judge anything for GW, while the data we have for ITC is kinda... un-inspiring.
Personally I am not a fan of the LVO style. I will admit that I don't play it but my opinion centers on two reasons. From paying attention to it for a long while, it always seems to encourage the same copy/pasta lists.. though I could be wrong. Mostly though it's the rules changes implemented by FLG. 7th is an example of this with Tau, changing the interpretation of how a rule in the Codex worked. Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
I like the concept of the GW tournament. It appears to just be straight up Warhammer 40k, from the Warhammer 40k game. Not a modified, unrecognizable version of 40k done by someone outside the development team.
But... like I said, I haven't played an LVO event, just watched from afar. I could be wrong. Happy to admit it.
On a lighter note. Does anyone know the list for the Slaanesh Daemons that placed in that list?
This would be a far more fair criticism if they house ruled 8th anywhere near to the level they did 7th but they effectively only alter 1 core rule in the current ITC set up.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
We're talking about the guy who recently wrote an article on how totally awesome a 90 point gretchin unit is (after you spend ~500pts on buffs). I don't know if he's evil, but I would definitely doubt his judgment on balance...
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
TBH I don't believe that stuff about Reece without a legit citation. I disagree with a lot of what he says/does, but that is some pretty serious accusations.
shortymcnostrill wrote: We're talking about the guy who recently wrote an article on how totally awesome a 90 point gretchin unit is (after you spend ~500pts on buffs). I don't know if he's evil, but I would definitely doubt his judgment on balance...
He runs a business selling those models so it would stand to reason that he wants to make them sound great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: These tournament results may not have the same highly acclaimed names of LVO, but for the balance of the game they are surely more important.
After all, THIS is 40k, the other ones are mods.
If i asked a game developer to change the stat of a weapon because it is currently overpowered in my mod, do you think that he would really do that?
I mean GW was clearly making balance decisions based on those mods prior to now so yeah I think those results are valid and are factored in GW's decision making
Sure, all data is important. What i'm saying is that we should differentiate between 40K problems and ITC problems.
Outside of ITC for example, Astra Militarum loses one of it's main strenghts. With basic rules putting something out of LOS is much harder, it's ITC that house rules it to make it easier.
At the same time this makes dark reapers even stronger, and in fact there were a lot of dark reapers played. Though, I still need to understand why they didn't make it to the top as easily as they did in LVO.
Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
I think there's plenty of room to disagree there. One set of tournaments are being run with missions straight out of the published product, while the other set of tournaments is not. The company would be well within its right and purview to place more importance on one over the other.
Arguably, if the GW tournaments are getting more balanced results, then it's the ITC setup that is causing imbalance. In which case ITC should be looked at more closely.
Correct but that isn't what GW is doing - they made adjustments based on ITC events prior to now. This isn't an argument about what they SHOULD do but what they HAVE done and what they have done at this point is look at ITC styled events as well as their own events for data points. Also I don't think their events are getting more balanced results, just a different set of skewed results.
I see a lot of modifying to the missions in my area. The GT this past weekend was a good example of that. Overly complicated and clunky. They require the use of the tactical cards. Which I think is wonky. Of all the places I've played only one used regular missions. It was the most fun I'd had so far. The TO's that come up with all these wierd rules and missions are imo trying to fix the game in their vision. Not good.
Spoletta wrote: Sure, all data is important. What i'm saying is that we should differentiate between 40K problems and ITC problems.
Outside of ITC for example, Astra Militarum loses one of it's main strenghts. With basic rules putting something out of LOS is much harder, it's ITC that house rules it to make it easier.
At the same time this makes dark reapers even stronger, and in fact there were a lot of dark reapers played. Though, I still need to understand why they didn't make it to the top as easily as they did in LVO.
I think a lot of the difference lies in secondaries. I don't play ITC but I would hazard a guess it punishes Horde armies, which is a weakness of Reapers. I can see the 'LVO style' Eldar list have an issue getting through 90 Plague Bearers for example.
It doesn't really punish any specific sub-type of army so much as it encourages specific builds to deny points. Its why you see units of 19 instead of 20 for example (giving up 1 bonus point instead of 2).
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
Gotta have a boogeyman.
What a master plan. Purposefully sabotage a book, because no one else would notice and GW would never fix it. Flawless!
It's the same tedious logic people use to call any change by GW a sales gimmick.
Farseer_V2 wrote: It doesn't really punish any specific sub-type of army so much as it encourages specific builds to deny points. Its why you see units of 19 instead of 20 for example (giving up 1 bonus point instead of 2).
Metagamey things like this I absolutely despise. It's one of the reasons why I dislike ITC missions; the secondary objectives encourage gaming list building even more than usual. I like the CA missions, but I like ITC fixed position objectives. The drawback is it lets you plan more in the pre-game phase, and I think a big issue with 40k's balance is the emphasis on list building. When you could have missions that require various things, I think it will encourage a more balanced listbuilding approach because you don't know it will always be hold objectives/kill units and then just have the secondaries be variable (but even then you often plan those out, at least the ones your opponent might be taking against you, so they are another listbuilding/pre-game thing)
Farseer_V2 wrote: It doesn't really punish any specific sub-type of army so much as it encourages specific builds to deny points. Its why you see units of 19 instead of 20 for example (giving up 1 bonus point instead of 2).
Metagamey things like this I absolutely despise. It's one of the reasons why I dislike ITC missions; the secondary objectives encourage gaming list building even more than usual.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
Much easier for GW's own people to get their feet on the ground, see first hand, and talk directly to the sources at the GTs held in their own house bar, compared to one that requires crossing an ocean or relying on second hand sources.
shortymcnostrill wrote: We're talking about the guy who recently wrote an article on how totally awesome a 90 point gretchin unit is (after you spend ~500pts on buffs). I don't know if he's evil, but I would definitely doubt his judgment on balance...
He runs a business selling those models so it would stand to reason that he wants to make them sound great.
He's willing to admit a faction sucks when he thinks it sucks, just look at how he talks about necrons. Reece is just an unusually optimistic guy and prefers to look on the positive sides of a unit, for better or worse.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I don't believe that stuff about Reece without a legit citation. I disagree with a lot of what he says/does, but that is some pretty serious accusations.
Look at his website around 8th edition release. Or even on this forum in the 8th edition release threads.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Sure but the point remains that data gathered at LVO, Adepticon, and similar events is just as important as data gathered at the GW events. To suggest otherwise ("but for the balance of the game they are surely more important") is clearly off base.
Much easier for GW's own people to get their feet on the ground, see first hand, and talk directly to the sources at the GTs held in their own house bar, compared to one that requires crossing an ocean or relying on second hand sources.
Well, GW has been AT all the major GTs in the US so far.
Lost in all of this is the assumption that LVO lists wouldn't have mopped the floor in this event. I believe they would have. Mid size GTs will have an entirely different meta, just like smaller RTTs.
Marmatag wrote: Lost in all of this is the assumption that LVO lists wouldn't have mopped the floor in this event. I believe they would have. Mid size GTs will have an entirely different meta, just like smaller RTTs.
Maybe. Probably. It could be that the lists here didn't play in the meta that Dark Reapers prefer and would have had an easier time. Sometimes a meta-breaker can get busted their first game and get stuck on lower tables, too.
Either way i'm eager to see how things shape out after the March FAQ.
Wayniac wrote: TBH I don't believe that stuff about Reece without a legit citation. I disagree with a lot of what he says/does, but that is some pretty serious accusations.
Look at his website around 8th edition release. Or even on this forum in the 8th edition release threads.
You can find it from his own mouth.
I heard if you say his name into a mirror, in a dark room, he'll appear and nerf your army. Spooky stuff.
I like the mission format for LVO - it was developed with help from GW and NOVA. It’s kind of like Maelstrom except you pick your tactical objectives at the beginning and there are enough choices every army shouid be able to score.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Correct but that isn't what GW is doing - they made adjustments based on ITC events prior to now. This isn't an argument about what they SHOULD do but what they HAVE done and what they have done at this point is look at ITC styled events as well as their own events for data points. Also I don't think their events are getting more balanced results, just a different set of skewed results.
Yes, they’ve made changes off the back of ITC events, but, prior to the GT Heats beginning they had no real reference data of their own outside of “play testing”.
We can see that they nerfed Flyers pretty quickly after ETC events.
We can also see that the Razorback/Assault Cannon nerf came quickly after GW Heat 1 finished.
Now that GW is starting to get more and more data from their own events, I can see, and I kinda hope, that they start using that as a focus for balance as opposed to anything else.
Yes, feedback and external data is helpful, but, the game needs to be balanced around “how the game is meant to be played”, rather than how others are playing it. Once that is done, other styles of play (ITC and ETC etc) can be adjusted to the required balance.
Ugh all you that are claiming Reece to be some sort of evil manipulator of the meta are so bogus it hurts. You have no evidence outside of anecdotal prattle and he has done more for the hobby than all of you combined. No one's perfect but he's a damn sight better than people are unfairly painting him here.
With regards these results I don't think the question is "are ITC or GW own missions better"? Both systems are different and lead to different metas which is a good thing in my book. Chapter Approved is a very strong GW mission set that said. The question should be "is the ITC or GW own scoring system better"?
GW reward "best opponent" and "best army" as part of the same thing. The guys who came in 2nd and 3rd went 4w 1d. 4th to 13th place went 4w 1l. In this scoring system it doesn't matter if you destroy your opponent or its a really really close game - you get scored the same either way. This leads people to play differently, often more conservatively.
As it is Orks have a good list and while (imo at least) its boring its not a shock some people have managed to win four games with it. I might be reaching here but I also think it does better against meta-Eldar than most.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Correct but that isn't what GW is doing - they made adjustments based on ITC events prior to now. This isn't an argument about what they SHOULD do but what they HAVE done and what they have done at this point is look at ITC styled events as well as their own events for data points. Also I don't think their events are getting more balanced results, just a different set of skewed results.
Yes, they’ve made changes off the back of ITC events, but, prior to the GT Heats beginning they had no real reference data of their own outside of “play testing”.
We can see that they nerfed Flyers pretty quickly after ETC events.
We can also see that the Razorback/Assault Cannon nerf came quickly after GW Heat 1 finished.
Now that GW is starting to get more and more data from their own events, I can see, and I kinda hope, that they start using that as a focus for balance as opposed to anything else.
Yes, feedback and external data is helpful, but, the game needs to be balanced around “how the game is meant to be played”, rather than how others are playing it. Once that is done, other styles of play (ITC and ETC etc) can be adjusted to the required balance.
Of course that results in the broken combo's not being nerfed. The UK heat wasn't exactly all that competive with top game breaking lists in abundance. So if GW balances game based on tournaments where people aren't as much in to break the game as in ITC...Well that just means broken stuff will remain broken.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
Yeah, this is nonsense. You guys thing GW wouldn't do anything if he did something so blatant? Gee, maybe, just maybe they are genuinely good players and can fit their armies to format, not format to their armies?
Also, I like how fixing completely bonkers, broken rule is "squatting". I take like 9-10 armies that were still worse in 7th than Tau after ITC fix don't exist at all then?
Yup, it's not like there is a pattern stretching back last four editions on which GW writer produces what rules for what army. See Cruddace's 5th edition IG, very similar to 8th edition Cruddace IG book, or Kelly producing broken Eldar books every edition (and then "balancing" it by writing really mediocre rules for say SM expansions he did) - it's all retroactive Reece's fault, eh?
Spoletta wrote: Remember that Dark Reapers are not OP by definition
Yeah, MEQ body for one third the price, one of the best guns in game with a hefty discount over what (worse) guns fielded by other armies get, and a special rule outshining virtually all other units, that makes dozens of units completely obsolete and gone from comp tables = not OP
May I inquire what you think is OP, then? Because compared to the above, 95% of the units in the game are utter garbage. Even vast majority of the must-take units of other armies don't really compare, and if not for cost/difficulty in obtaining, literally all Eldar army would have 60 of the above. They need "support"? Please, even without it they beat point-for-point most unit doing similar role, even if you give these units free captain or librarian. And seeing Eldar buffers tend to be better/cheaper than what other armies get, well...
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ugh all you that are claiming Reece to be some sort of evil manipulator of the meta are so bogus it hurts. You have no evidence outside of anecdotal prattle and he has done more for the hobby than all of you combined. No one's perfect but he's a damn sight better than people are unfairly painting him here.
I agree, but I still reserve the right to make fun of him for claiming that stompas will be ridiculously broken in 8th.
ArmchairArbiter wrote: Reecius, from someone who knows the internal testers, was said to have wanted to make Tau unplayable so they squat them while playtesting and doesn't he run LVO?
He's well known to create rules/playtesting feedback that benefit his and his friends armies and hurt armies that aren't.
He plays Orks so I'm not sure this holds a ton of weight. His preferred form of Eldar is footdar as well. I'm not saying Reese is perfect but this is ascribing to him some pretty grievous moral flaws.
Yeah, this is nonsense. You guys thing GW wouldn't do anything if he did something so blatant? Gee, maybe, just maybe they are genuinely good players and can fit their armies to format, not format to their armies?
Also, I like how fixing completely bonkers, broken rule is "squatting". I take like 9-10 armies that were still worse in 7th than Tau after ITC fix don't exist at all then?
Yup, it's not like there is a pattern stretching back last four editions on which GW writer produces what rules for what army. See Cruddace's 5th edition IG, very similar to 8th edition Cruddace IG book, or Kelly producing broken Eldar books every edition (and then "balancing" it by writing really mediocre rules for say SM expansions he did) - it's all retroactive Reece's fault, eh?
Spoletta wrote: Remember that Dark Reapers are not OP by definition
Yeah, MEQ body for one third the price, one of the best guns in game with a hefty discount over what (worse) guns fielded by other armies get, and a special rule outshining virtually all other units, that makes dozens of units completely obsolete and gone from comp tables = not OP
May I inquire what you think is OP, then? Because compared to the above, 95% of the units in the game are utter garbage. Even vast majority of the must-take units of other armies don't really compare, and if not for cost/difficulty in obtaining, literally all Eldar army would have 60 of the above. They need "support"? Please, even without it they beat point-for-point most unit doing similar role, even if you give these units free captain or librarian. And seeing Eldar buffers tend to be better/cheaper than what other armies get, well...
Way to look at a single line of a post and then run with it in a completely different direction than the actual content of the post.
Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.
It is unfortunate to see the primarch in there but what can you do
Marmatag wrote: Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.
My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.
Yeah as a Tyranid player i like it. We have to do similar things with our list building - unless you're spamming flyrants, there is always a trade off, and you need to kind of be able to create multiple different kinds of threats for your opponent to have a chance. It looks like this list does that fairly well. Lots of different threats bouncing around. Although I do think it falls apart without Mortarian, which is unfortunate, because I think that guy is really broken.
Marmatag wrote: Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.
My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.
Definitely the Rhino's first so that the Berserkers have to walk, buying you time to deal with Morty.
Marmatag wrote: Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.
My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.
Definitely the Rhino's first so that the Berserkers have to walk, buying you time to deal with Morty.
He has that sorcerer there for warptime, I presume, which means the pressure from Morty is much higher. Jump pack means he comes down whenever and wherever he is needed.
Marmatag wrote: Honestly it's a cool list. It's effectively a derivative of competitive chaos lists, but it's nice to see it as a pure Chaos Space Marines army rather than daemon soup.
My thoughts, too. Smart use of points and just the right characters to make it all work. Shoot Mortarion or shoot the Rhinos with mostly morale immune Berzerkers? And then try to shoot a bunch of AL cultists when tons of CP are kicking around.
Definitely the Rhino's first so that the Berserkers have to walk, buying you time to deal with Morty.
He has that sorcerer there for warptime, I presume, which means the pressure from Morty is much higher. Jump pack means he comes down whenever and wherever he is needed.
I think the demon prince had warptime in the game on stream but yes hes obv going to try a T1 Morty charge.
Trying to kill Morty in 1 turn is always risk, it can be done but its far from certain. And if those Berserkers make it to your army unmolested the game is basically over. So kill the Rhino's to make them take long and try to then deal with Morty to you can kill more berserkers before they get to you, all the while also dealing with the rest of his army.
In the finals Morty and the cultists kept his opponent busy (3 plague crawlers, 89 plaguebearers and a bunch of character) until the Berserkers arrived who tore the plaguebearers to bits (not hard when you attack 3x in 1 turn) to secured the win.
I think the demon prince had warptime in the game on stream but yes hes obv going to try a T1 Morty charge.
Trying to kill Morty in 1 turn is always risk, it can be done but its far from certain. And if those Berserkers make it to your army unmolested the game is basically over. So kill the Rhino's to make them take long and try to then deal with Morty to you can kill more berserkers before they get to you, all the while also dealing with the rest of his army.
In the finals Morty and the cultists kept his opponent busy (3 plague crawlers, 89 plaguebearers and a bunch of character) until the Berserkers arrived who tore the plaguebearers to bits (not hard when you attack 3x in 1 turn) to secured the win.
Nice i'll have to find some time to go back and watch that game.
I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.
Wayniac wrote: I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.
Agreed, the list without Morty is pretty cool. But, with him in there, this just shows how absurd souping has become.
I still say that the primarchs should have a rule where in matched play 50% of your points have to be the proper legion in order to run that primarch. So no Morty unless you can fit at least 525 more points of Death Guard in your army.
Arachnofiend wrote: I still say that the primarchs should have a rule where in matched play 50% of your points have to be the proper legion in order to run that primarch. So no Morty unless you can fit at least 525 more points of Death Guard in your army.
GW just needs to do something about souping to make it less attractive as a choice. Right now there is literally no trade off. Souping is always the right decision for Imperium, Eldar, and Chaos, which have been consistently the best.
Wayniac wrote: I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.
You know originally there was no problem with a Khorne/Slaanesh combo. The original pairings for hate were Khorne/Tzeench (no magic just muscle/magic > muscle) and Nurgle/Slaanesh (ugly/beautiful). I don't know when GW retconned it but there it was.
Wayniac wrote: I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.
You know originally there was no problem with a Khorne/Slaanesh combo. The original pairings for hate were Khorne/Tzeench (no magic just muscle/magic > muscle) and Nurgle/Slaanesh (ugly/beautiful). I don't know when GW retconned it but there it was.
It's Nurgle vs Tzeentch and Khorne vs Slaanesh.
Think of it this way. Nurgle is unchanging. Despair and hopelessness. Tzeentch is constant change and abmition, which does not suit Nurgle in the least.
Khorne hates Slaanesh, because they are sissy fighters.
The current animosities existed in the original realm of Chaos so not sure when they were before that.
Anyways I agree something needs to be done to limit soup. I'd like to see primarchs require the entire army to be their faction or something like that, maybe excuse <God> for the Chaos ones (e.g. all Nurgle keyword can take Morty, all Tzeentch can take Magnus) or something.
All chaos gods hate two chaos gods and the third one they don't hate as much.
Khorne really hates Slaanesh and Tzeentch, and he hates Nurgle a bit less.
Tzeentch really hates Khorne and Nurgle, and he hates Slaanesh a bit less.
Slaanesh really hates Khorne and Nurgle, and s/he hates Tzeentch a bit less.
Nurgle is the happiest one. He really hates Tzeentch, and he hates Khorne and Slaanesh a bit less.
To put this slightly back on track- If people want % requirements for primarchs shouldn't there also be restrictions on grand masters and warlords? Maybe not as high as primarchs but then again maybe not too much less.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: To put this slightly back on track- If people want % requirements for primarchs shouldn't there also be restrictions on grand masters and warlords? Maybe not as high as primarchs but then again maybe not too much less.
I think Primachs being SO special it makes a bit more sense to restrict them with a % then anything else.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: To put this slightly back on track- If people want % requirements for primarchs shouldn't there also be restrictions on grand masters and warlords? Maybe not as high as primarchs but then again maybe not too much less.
I think Primachs being SO special it makes a bit more sense to restrict them with a % then anything else.
And what about the inevitable equivalent among other armies?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: To put this slightly back on track- If people want % requirements for primarchs shouldn't there also be restrictions on grand masters and warlords? Maybe not as high as primarchs but then again maybe not too much less.
I think Primachs being SO special it makes a bit more sense to restrict them with a % then anything else.
And what about the inevitable equivalent among other armies?
You say that as if there's any chance that other armies will get primarch equivalents.
You could also just eliminate the super-heavy auxiliary detachment and add a LoW slot to battailions and brigades. That way Mortarion is no longer plug&play into any army that's chaos.
Arachnofiend wrote: You say that as if there's any chance that other armies will get primarch equivalents.
*stares at Marbo*
Gee... thanks.
Or is it supposed to be the baneblade that's a primarch equivalent. They really desperately need an invulnerable save.
I'd consider a "primarch equivalent" to be a LOW character, face-of-the-faction kind of guy. Most factions don't even have someone that could fill that type of role, and some factions shouldn't (IG being a great example because it is definitely not the IG style to have a Guilliman-type officer). The first thought for a non-space marine primarch equivalent for me is the Silent King, who is of course not tied to any particular dynasty since he rules over all of them.
Arachnofiend wrote: You say that as if there's any chance that other armies will get primarch equivalents.
*stares at Marbo*
Gee... thanks.
Or is it supposed to be the baneblade that's a primarch equivalent. They really desperately need an invulnerable save.
I'd consider a "primarch equivalent" to be a LOW character, face-of-the-faction kind of guy. Most factions don't even have someone that could fill that type of role, and some factions shouldn't (IG being a great example because it is definitely not the IG style to have a Guilliman-type officer). The first thought for a non-space marine primarch equivalent for me is the Silent King, who is of course not tied to any particular dynasty since he rules over all of them.
I'm not sure i'd consider the Silent King as a Primarch equivalent . Perhaps a shard that has eaten a few more shards would be more on the money.
Two things...
Does anyone know the Ork lists (I've read the thread but can't see them).
In regards to Soup, I like it. I've never been in a tournament but I think it adds in a really good flexibility to how I have always liked to play and how my vast collection of models that i've built up over 20 years work together (I play Chaos). I want to take Abaddon at the head of a mixed force of Death Guard, Thousand Sons, World Eaters Daemons etc; not just Black Legion and I don't think there should be any penalties for doing it. Soup isn't the issue, it's the way in which several things can be used in Soul that's the problem. I want to run Ahriman and Fabius together, both soft renegades from their home legions, I want to run Kharn and Typhus together. I want my Chaos Lord to be able to summon daemons to his aid. It's not un-fluffy even if unlikely in some scenarios.
What needs to be done is to bring the ability to create forces more in line with the fluff, as in the frequency of which Primarchs, Chapter Masters and perhaps even Greater Daemons/Daemon Lords are available. Someone above suggested removing the super heavy detachment and adding it into a Battalion. I agree with this and adding them to the larger version. I'd also say take the SH option from a Supreme Command detachment too (and instead replace it with Elites). There used to be old rules that prevented certain characters from existing in certain sized armies (I recall Abaddon only being usable in 2K+ at one point) - this would also be a good alternative. Say that Mortarion can only be included in a DG detachment of 1500 pts or more, same with Magnus. Chapters masters/Abby/GD's/Avatars 1k and so on and then at least you've also got decent grounds in buffing some of these units a little as they have a 1.5k 'tax' atop them. It's not as if Death Guard and Thousand Sons are NOT competitive and it's not as if this change would prevent soup or be a complicated rule to understand.
Galas wrote: All chaos gods hate two chaos gods and the third one they don't hate as much.
Khorne really hates Slaanesh and Tzeentch, and he hates Nurgle a bit less.
Tzeentch really hates Khorne and Nurgle, and he hates Slaanesh a bit less.
Slaanesh really hates Khorne and Nurgle, and s/he hates Tzeentch a bit less.
Nurgle is the happiest one. He really hates Tzeentch, and he hates Khorne and Slaanesh a bit less.
That's not what it says in the fluff. The current 8th edition Codex repeats the classic pairings.
Khorne vs. Slaanesh
Tzeentch vs. Nurgle.
It's just that Khorne ALSO hates magic, but Tzeentch is not just about magic . And of course, basically they all hate each other.
Wayniac wrote: I think the only thing that rubs me the wrong way in that list is Morty, because he's just there. Hes the only Death Guard model in the list. As fluff-breaking as it is to have Slaanesh/Khorne models in the same army (the "Alpha Legion" stuff all had MoS I think) it can be excused. But "Here's the primarch of the death guard by himself!" is a little harder to swallow.
You know originally there was no problem with a Khorne/Slaanesh combo. The original pairings for hate were Khorne/Tzeench (no magic just muscle/magic > muscle) and Nurgle/Slaanesh (ugly/beautiful). I don't know when GW retconned it but there it was.
Not since Realms of Chaos - the two books were the two opposing Gods:
Khorne-Slaanesh
Nurgle-Tzeentch
Can't recall it any other way?
However if the gods decide to do so they can play nice together and so can their daemons - for a bit, until they get bored, or angry, or jealous......................
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Just remove special characters from matched play, and put them back in narrative, where they like, belong.
yeah because who cares if Ynnari players can play in matched play at all right?
I mean they do make Eldar ridiculously OP so... Something tells me this would not be missed as much as you think
Doesn't change the fact that its an army that people own models for and want to play. Ask GW to better balance the faction rather than making some ham-fisted adjustment that entirely prevents the army from being played.
Most of the top players were playing in another tournament going on at the same time.
LOL. Wow. That's a new level of absurd right there.
Why? 2 different tournaments running at same dates and players choosing between one?
I think he meant more just discrediting GT Heat 3 by saying "All the good players were elsewhere"
But it's simple fact that regular tournament players weren't there. Level of competition was lower there. Only rookie would think that tournament represented current top meta
But it's simple fact that regular tournament players weren't there. Level of competition was lower there. Only rookie would think that tournament represented current top meta
Right, because only the top 100 or so people at LVO are worth anything. There couldn't possibly be any other good players out there that didn't have time, couldn't afford it, or any other factor prohibiting them from attending.
But it's simple fact that regular tournament players weren't there. Level of competition was lower there. Only rookie would think that tournament represented current top meta
Right, because only the top 100 or so people at LVO are worth anything. There couldn't possibly be any other good players out there that didn't have time, couldn't afford it, or any other factor prohibiting them from attending.
Silence you heathen! Only the LVO, with a modified version of 40k - not even the regular game, and the people that won that tournament matter! DO YOU HAVE NO RESPECT?! DO YOU KNOW NOTHING?!
. And of course, basically they all hate each other.
