Take out the fortress for 2k this list offers the ability to deep strike around 70 plasma shots, getting more shots on a 6+ while basalisks sit on the back edge and shell the enemy and bubble wrap with. Guard and sentinels.
At 2.5k with the wall unless you are.bringing volcano cannons. You can't get the basalisks.
I'm not posting my most "brutal" list; that's not generally the way I think. But I will post the most competitive list that I typically will play; it's slightly unfluffy in that the mechanicus detachment is too large for real "fluff". Here goes:
Astra Militarum Super Heavy Detachment Lord of War: Baneblade w/ 3 twin Heavy Bolters, 2 Lascannons, Demolisher Cannon, Autocannon, Baneblade Cannon, Adamantium Tracks, Pintle Heavy Stubber (528 pts)
Lord of War: Baneblade w/ 3 twin Heavy Bolters, 2 Lascannons, Demolisher Cannon, Autocannon, Baneblade Cannon, Adamantium Tracks, Pintle Heavy Stubber (528 pts)
Lord of War: Baneblade w/ 3 twin Heavy Bolters, 2 Lascannons, Demolisher Cannon, Autocannon, Baneblade Cannon, Adamantium Tracks, Pintle Heavy Stubber (528 pts)
Nah man drop one of the bane blades for the brawler blade.
I think its the banehammer, the one with the cannon that reduces movement, give it 4 heavy flamers and just drive it right into the enemy. Its devastating.
I think its the banehammer, the one with the cannon that reduces movement, give it 4 heavy flamers and just drive it right into the enemy. Its devastating.
It's actually really expensive (604), is a fairly obvious target (being the most expensive superheavy out there and kitted out intimidatingly), and has a useless transport capacity.
It will die Turn 1, because my opponents almost always manage to kill a superheavy instantly if they go first, and being the most obvious, overkitted target out there, it will be this one. That's why I stopped running mixed companies; it makes the opponent's target priority too easy when you have one obvious target.
Better hope that Shadowsword doesn't get instantly deleted like Baneblades are wont to do, or all of your meaningful anti-tank just went up in smoke. If my Baneblades/whatever superheavy I am running that day goes first, I bet I could wipe the Shadowsword and an Executioner in a single go.
Better hope that Shadowsword doesn't get instantly deleted like Baneblades are wont to do, or all of your meaningful anti-tank just went up in smoke. If my Baneblades/whatever superheavy I am running that day goes first, I bet I could wipe the Shadowsword and an Executioner in a single go.
Yeah but at that point, you are winning with a gun line army in a game where majority of the matches are determined by turn one shooting. Its like saying i would win if i rolled all 6's, well duh lol
Better hope that Shadowsword doesn't get instantly deleted like Baneblades are wont to do, or all of your meaningful anti-tank just went up in smoke. If my Baneblades/whatever superheavy I am running that day goes first, I bet I could wipe the Shadowsword and an Executioner in a single go.
Yeah but at that point, you are winning with a gun line army in a game where majority of the matches are determined by turn one shooting. Its like saying i would win if i rolled all 6's, well duh lol
That's 8th edition, now, unfortunately. Being able to survive 1st turn shooting from the enemy is a prerequisite for victory, or you just lose 50% of your games. That's what I'm indicating. My list, with 3 vehicles each mounting quite capable anti-tank, anti-horde, and assault capabilities, will endure his first turn and be able to retaliate, while his list, with concentrated anti-tank in a few units, would be crippled if the situation were reversed.
I condensed it below, because I absolutely hate Battlescribe format (from BCBs list).
9 Mortars
2 BCs 12 Hot Shot
3 Multilasers
5 Catachan/Harker Basilisks
7 HBs 117 bodies for chaff
5 Basilisks The average number of shots for a Catachan Basilisk is 4.8 when rerolling any time there is a 1, 2, or when both rolls are equal.
24 shots * .583 * .666 * .833 * 2 = 15.5 //dead predator plus
Two Commander BCS 14 * .666 * .666 * .666 * 2 = 8.3 //another dead predator with the overflow above
9 Mortars 31.5 * .5 * .5 * .167 = 1.3 //marines in cover...OR 2.6 NOT in cover
12 Hot Shot 24 * .666 * .333 * .5 = 2.7 //marines in cover...OR 3.5 NOT in cover
3 Multilasers 9 * .5 * .666 * .167 = 0.5 //marines in cover...OR 1 NOT in cover
7 HBs 21 * .583 * .666 * .333 = 2.3 //marines in cover...OR 3.5 NOT in cover
Lasguns //The number in range would be quite variable, but i'll throw 60 in fro good measure
60 * .333 * .333 * .167 = 1.1 //marines in cover...OR 2.2 NOT in cover
The final tally:
2 Predators // 300 to 380 points
8 to 13 marines (or 4 to 7 Primaris) // roughly 200 to 250 points
Factually IG would not clear what is on the table, however, how is it possible for the remainder to punch through 90 conscripts and some IS to get at the tanks? I realize my list isn't fully optimized, but I don't think there would be enough to drastically change the outcome.
Factually IG would not clear what is on the table, however, how is it possible for the remainder to punch through 90 conscripts and some IS to get at the tanks? I realize my list isn't fully optimized, but I don't think there would be enough to drastically change the outcome.
Do you?
Yes. IIRC I fought a Blood Angels army where each Sanguinary Guard was swinging at Str 6, -1 AP with like 3-4 attacks. Your Sanguinary Guard should be able to blenderize 16-21 IG per assault phase (16 for 3 attacks, 21 for 4) meaning it should be fairly trivial to wipe ~30 guardsmen in two fight phases and punch a wide hole in the enemy screens in a single battle round.
Yes. IIRC I fought a Blood Angels army where each Sanguinary Guard was swinging at Str 6, -1 AP with like 3-4 attacks. Your Sanguinary Guard should be able to blenderize 16-21 IG per assault phase (16 for 3 attacks, 21 for 4) meaning it should be fairly trivial to wipe ~30 guardsmen in two fight phases and punch a wide hole in the enemy screens in a single battle round.
But they can't do that any more. Those lists had WAY more points in DS than were on the table. And you just step back and shoot them off before the second assault.
Yes. IIRC I fought a Blood Angels army where each Sanguinary Guard was swinging at Str 6, -1 AP with like 3-4 attacks. Your Sanguinary Guard should be able to blenderize 16-21 IG per assault phase (16 for 3 attacks, 21 for 4) meaning it should be fairly trivial to wipe ~30 guardsmen in two fight phases and punch a wide hole in the enemy screens in a single battle round.
But they can't do that any more. Those lists had WAY more points in DS than were on the table.
You absolutely could, just wait till turn 2, meaning the screens are clear turn 3, hide your scouts, use your Primaris to pluck away at enemy screens and absorb bullets. And IIRC it's not points in DS, but power level, right? IDK the power level of BA units.
AND no you absolutely could not step back. Assault units with fly are 100% able to surround enemy models and prevent them from falling back. They're literally the best at that tactic. I pull it off with Daemonettes consistently and don't even get to fly over enemy models like SG.
Lol wow what a bad list. Only 60 screening models; those infantry will get shredded by damn near any shooting T1 and then the enemy's Turn 2 assault deepstrike will come steaming through the gap that their Turn 1 shooting opened. GG indeed.
A list very similar won war-zone Atalanta. So laughing at this list just makes you look stupid. This list is actually better. Trading stupid horses for 3 command russ really makes it sting.
Xenomancers wrote: A list very similar won war-zone Atalanta. So laughing at this list just makes you look stupid. This list is actually better. Trading stupid horses for 3 command russ really makes it sting.
You do realize the game has gone through some major upheavals since November, 2017?
Or are you just being disingenuous or willfully ignorant?
Xenomancers wrote: A list very similar won war-zone Atalanta. So laughing at this list just makes you look stupid. This list is actually better. Trading stupid horses for 3 command russ really makes it sting.
You do realize the game has gone through some major upheavals since November, 2017?
Or are you just being disingenuous or willfully ignorant?
Xeno is known for being...over-excitable...about certain armies/lists.
Yes. IIRC I fought a Blood Angels army where each Sanguinary Guard was swinging at Str 6, -1 AP with like 3-4 attacks. Your Sanguinary Guard should be able to blenderize 16-21 IG per assault phase (16 for 3 attacks, 21 for 4) meaning it should be fairly trivial to wipe ~30 guardsmen in two fight phases and punch a wide hole in the enemy screens in a single battle round.
But they can't do that any more. Those lists had WAY more points in DS than were on the table.
You absolutely could, just wait till turn 2, meaning the screens are clear turn 3, hide your scouts, use your Primaris to pluck away at enemy screens and absorb bullets. And IIRC it's not points in DS, but power level, right? IDK the power level of BA units.
AND no you absolutely could not step back. Assault units with fly are 100% able to surround enemy models and prevent them from falling back. They're literally the best at that tactic. I pull it off with Daemonettes consistently and don't even get to fly over enemy models like SG.
The BA list mentioned in the other thread would be 52 something PL so fairly close, but it will depend on the rest of the list. Does anyone have a full example of such a BA list?
Yes. IIRC I fought a Blood Angels army where each Sanguinary Guard was swinging at Str 6, -1 AP with like 3-4 attacks. Your Sanguinary Guard should be able to blenderize 16-21 IG per assault phase (16 for 3 attacks, 21 for 4) meaning it should be fairly trivial to wipe ~30 guardsmen in two fight phases and punch a wide hole in the enemy screens in a single battle round.
But they can't do that any more. Those lists had WAY more points in DS than were on the table.
You absolutely could, just wait till turn 2, meaning the screens are clear turn 3, hide your scouts, use your Primaris to pluck away at enemy screens and absorb bullets. And IIRC it's not points in DS, but power level, right? IDK the power level of BA units.
AND no you absolutely could not step back. Assault units with fly are 100% able to surround enemy models and prevent them from falling back. They're literally the best at that tactic. I pull it off with Daemonettes consistently and don't even get to fly over enemy models like SG.
The BA list mentioned in the other thread would be 52 something PL so fairly close, but it will depend on the rest of the list. Does anyone have a full example of such a BA list?
I don't know what 'other thread' or anything, but yeah, it's 50% PL, not points, IIRC.
Backspacehacker wrote: Normally I can agree with xeno but...that's a really bad guard list. Anyone with large amounts of s4 -1 or better is going to shread that list.
Somehow these other lists with half as many infantry are going to get less shredded?
How? They can't even deep strike turn 1 anymore. I took all the new FAQ into account when I made the list. What are your scions going to shoot? My infantry?
The only anti tank you have are vets which again will die turn one from basalisks. And 3 Russ tanks which will die shortly after if not half killed from basalisks and over charged plasma.
Your army is mostly just guardsmen, sure your Russ tanks will do work, but it's hard to win a game with 3 tanks.
Backspacehacker wrote: Normally I can agree with xeno but...that's a really bad guard list. Anyone with large amounts of s4 -1 or better is going to shread that list.
Somehow these other lists with half as many infantry are going to get less shredded?
It's literally impossible to lock up Baneblades, so at least in the case of my list, my screens being almost immediately shredded doesn't matter.
How? They can't even deep strike turn 1 anymore. I took all the new FAQ into account when I made the list. What are your scions going to shoot? My infantry?
If only there were turns in the game other than Turn 1!
I don't need to drop in turn one.i can she'll you from my back lines, drop in half turn 2, and then the next half turn 3 once everything is opened up from shelling and the first wave of plasma. Of if you leave your back line drop it all turn 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post: People seem to forget it can be very beneficial to NOT deep strike turn one
Xenomancers wrote: A list very similar won war-zone Atalanta. So laughing at this list just makes you look stupid. This list is actually better. Trading stupid horses for 3 command russ really makes it sting.
You do realize the game has gone through some major upheavals since November, 2017?
Or are you just being disingenuous or willfully ignorant?
They had craftworld eldar and choas soup...AKA the best armies in the game. Blood angels and nids hadn't come out yet but this list is even better against those armies. Plus those armies are irreverent with the new FAQ with no ability to deep strike turn 1.
Backspacehacker wrote: I don't need to drop in turn one.i can she'll you from my back lines, drop in half turn 2, and then the next half turn 3 once everything is opened up from shelling and the first wave of plasma. Of if you leave your back line drop it all turn 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post: People seem to forget it can be very beneficial to NOT deep strike turn one
This game is about killing things. You can't kill anything while in reserve. You also can't deep strike past 90 infantry even on turn 2.
There won't be 90 infantry left on Turn 2. Guard go down like flies. I expect to lose a Baneblade and all but one squad of Guardsmen in my list Turn 1, and when I don't I count my lucky stars.
Guardsmen die in droves. 60 is not enough to screen your heavy weapons, and putting the Veterans up front to make a 90 man screen is just asking for your best anti-tank source to get melted immediately.
I could literally make your list better by saying "replace veterans with lascannon command squads". That's how bad your list is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok guys back on topic - i'm not worried about IG killing each other.
I need help finding the hardest of BA lists that fits in the new FAQ now.
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Backspacehacker wrote: Normally I can agree with xeno but...that's a really bad guard list. Anyone with large amounts of s4 -1 or better is going to shread that list.
Somehow these other lists with half as many infantry are going to get less shredded?
It's literally impossible to lock up Baneblades, so at least in the case of my list, my screens being almost immediately shredded doesn't matter.
How? They can't even deep strike turn 1 anymore. I took all the new FAQ into account when I made the list. What are your scions going to shoot? My infantry?
If only there were turns in the game other than Turn 1!
I guess you can divide your forces and shoot less than me and still somehow win. It's possible.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There won't be 90 infantry left on Turn 2. Guard go down like flies. I expect to lose a Baneblade and all but one squad of Guardsmen in my list Turn 1, and when I don't I count my lucky stars.
Guardsmen die in droves. 60 is not enough to screen your heavy weapons, and putting the Veterans up front to make a 90 man screen is just asking for your best anti-tank source to get melted immediately.
I could literally make your list better by saying "replace veterans with lascannon command squads". That's how bad your list is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok guys back on topic - i'm not worried about IG killing each other.
I need help finding the hardest of BA lists that fits in the new FAQ now.
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Somehow losing 5 bodies and paying more points for special weapons you wont be in range to use will make the list better. Cool.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There won't be 90 infantry left on Turn 2. Guard go down like flies. I expect to lose a Baneblade and all but one squad of Guardsmen in my list Turn 1, and when I don't I count my lucky stars.
Guardsmen die in droves. 60 is not enough to screen your heavy weapons, and putting the Veterans up front to make a 90 man screen is just asking for your best anti-tank source to get melted immediately.
I could literally make your list better by saying "replace veterans with lascannon command squads". That's how bad your list is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok guys back on topic - i'm not worried about IG killing each other.
I need help finding the hardest of BA lists that fits in the new FAQ now.
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Somehow losing 5 bodies and paying more points for special weapons you wont be in range to use will make the list better. Cool.
Losing 5 bodies doesn't matter when those 5 bodies die to a stiff breeze. And Command Squads aren't required to take special weapons, and cost exactly the same PPM as veterans.
So, wilfull ignorance it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: There are no tactics in this game - this game is OK coral.
3x infantry squads
2x infantry squads with mortars
3x hellhounds
2x mants
3x punisher LRBTs
Tallarn (whatever one lets you deepstrike a tank) supreme command
3x psychers
1x shadsword
Drive the SS into your zone to protect it from alpha and ensure LOS. Destroy enemy anti-tank with it, burn enemy close range fighting, dakka enemy hordes.
Enough dakka to punish infantry. Tanks will live until shadowsword is dead or until anti tank units are off the table. Shadwsword gets 1 turn at full shooting at least.
Chimeras are to rush forward. I don't know of a lot of lists that pack the firepower to deal with them, the lrbts and the shadowsword after getting alpha/beta's by the shadowsword so either you lose them and the lrbts/shadowsword pwn or they are pretty much free to run around flaming things to death (great for those pesky -1/-2s)
Unit1126PLL wrote: There won't be 90 infantry left on Turn 2. Guard go down like flies. I expect to lose a Baneblade and all but one squad of Guardsmen in my list Turn 1, and when I don't I count my lucky stars.
Guardsmen die in droves. 60 is not enough to screen your heavy weapons, and putting the Veterans up front to make a 90 man screen is just asking for your best anti-tank source to get melted immediately.
I could literally make your list better by saying "replace veterans with lascannon command squads". That's how bad your list is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok guys back on topic - i'm not worried about IG killing each other.
I need help finding the hardest of BA lists that fits in the new FAQ now.
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Somehow losing 5 bodies and paying more points for special weapons you wont be in range to use will make the list better. Cool.
Losing 5 bodies doesn't matter when those 5 bodies die to a stiff breeze. And Command Squads aren't required to take special weapons, and cost exactly the same PPM as veterans.
So, wilfull ignorance it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: There are no tactics in this game - this game is OK coral.
What is shooting at my 4 point infantry and killing them so fast?
Xenomancers wrote: What is shooting at my 4 point infantry and killing them so fast?
The points cost doesn't matter once units are on the table. You have X number of bodies, and you can't buy more. So your question is: "What is shooting at T3/5+ bodies and killing them so fast?"
If you have to ask why T3/5+ bodies are easily killed, then you'll need help from someone more professionally qualified than I.
EDIT: Also your veterans are 6ppm, and we're talking about swapping the veterans for CCS. Or did you concede that your list wasn't even thought out, and merely vomited forth from that unreasoning maelstrom that you call a mind?
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Yea the slightly illegal Adepticon BA list was IG, 9 SG, and some support, which is a far cry from the ultimate BA melee shredder. I'll do some hunting.
Xenomancers wrote: What is shooting at my 4 point infantry and killing them so fast?
The points cost doesn't matter once units are on the table. You have X number of bodies, and you can't buy more. So your question is: "What is shooting at T3/5+ bodies and killing them so fast?"
If you have to ask why T3/5+ bodies are easily killed, then you'll need help from someone more professionally qualified than I.
EDIT:
Also your veterans are 6ppm, and we're talking about swapping the veterans for CCS. Or did you concede that your list wasn't even thought out, and merely vomited forth from that unreasoning maelstrom that you call a mind?
You tell me that my whole infantry force is going to get shredded turn 1 then say I should take even less bodies. It makes no sense.
I'll stop. I don't need to prove anything - a variation of this list already won a major event with flying colors against ynnari/aliotic/DG/Chaos soup (with unnerfed magnus). There is my proof.
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Yea the slightly illegal Adepticon BA list was IG, 9 SG, and some support, which is a far cry from the ultimate BA melee shredder. I'll do some hunting.
The strongest Mono IG list you will face will be something like the list I posted.
With Souping we are probably looking at Custodes mixed with IG. Maybe 2 IG batalllions with 2x Jetbike Sheild Captains and as many bikes as they can fit.
Marmatag wrote: In general with this rule change better lists won't bother with deep strike as a primary means of offense.
You want to be able to bring all your shooting to bear turn 1, and with solid range.
In truth i think this rule is actually so bad that they end up squatting it.
I don't entirely agree with this, but it's really hard to judge without putting models on the table and seeing the thought process of other players develop.
Might get to a small local tournament using all the new rules this weekend and i'll record my games.
Marmatag wrote: In general with this rule change better lists won't bother with deep strike as a primary means of offense.
You want to be able to bring all your shooting to bear turn 1, and with solid range.
In truth i think this rule is actually so bad that they end up squatting it.
"40k is bad because of strong alpha"
*puts in a rule to nerf strong alpha*
"Wow this rule is bad, you can't strong alpha"
No it's more like :
"40k is bad because of strong alpha"
"Alright, so we remove the only counter to strong shooting alpha, which is strong melee alpha"
"Yeah, cool, but what about the strong shooting alpha"
"Oh that, we'll just leave it. We like it when both army face off, dont move, and shoot the crap out of each other turn 1. What's that, you play a melee army and won't ever be able to reach melee range because the other army has too many guns and 2-3 free turn to get into position and shoot you? You just had to buy a real army, like IG. Too bad."
I have three that are all fairly nasty. I don't know if they're the nastiest I could think of, but they hurt to play at least:
Spoiler:
Brigade - +12CP
Tank Commander Battle Tank, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Company Commander
Company Commander
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Astropath
Astropath
Commissar
Scout Sentinels
Scout Sentinels
Scout Sentinels
Basilisk
Basilisk
Basilisk
Manticore
Manticore
Trojan
Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment - +0CP
Shadowsword, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Spoiler:
Brigade - +12CP
Tank Commander Battle Tank, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Company Commander
Company Commander
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Astropath
Astropath
Commissar
Scout Sentinels
Scout Sentinels
Scout Sentinels
Basilisk
Basilisk
Basilisk
Manticore
Spearhead +1CP
Tank Commander Battle Tank, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Leman Russ Punisher, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Leman Russ Punisher, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Leman Russ Punisher, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Storm Bolter
Spoiler:
Super Heavy Detachment - +3CP
Shadowsword, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Heavy Bolter Sponsons
Shadowsword, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Heavy Bolter Sponsons
Shadowsword, Heavy Bolter Sponsons, Heavy Bolter Sponsons
Battalion Detachment - +5CP
Company Commander
Company Commander
Infantry
Infantry
Infantry
Trojan Support Vehicle
Trojan Support Vehicle
I feel all of them are a little too light on infantry to really be the most backbreaking they could, but there are super heavy tanks to deter charges/charge themselves, and there a scout sentinels that can get forward and take up space as fodder, if somewhat less efficiently.
Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
lolman1c wrote: Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
2000pts of tesla immortals and annihilation barges.
No it's more like :
"40k is bad because of strong alpha"
"Alright, so we remove the only counter to strong shooting alpha, which is strong melee alpha"
"Yeah, cool, but what about the strong shooting alpha"
"Oh that, we'll just leave it. We like it when both army face off, dont move, and shoot the crap out of each other turn 1. What's that, you play a melee army and won't ever be able to reach melee range because the other army has too many guns and 2-3 free turn to get into position and shoot you? You just had to buy a real army, like IG. Too bad."
Why do you equate melee and ranged as being direct counters to each other? Why are armies either ranged or melee? Why can't they be both?
I'll never understand the desire to make melee always equal to shooting. They are different. They fulfill different roles, they complement each other. Melee has drawbacks, the main one being that you need to get close, but it has pros such as locking down units. Relying on melee to do all the work is simply a bad tactical decision when guns exist.
Also shooting is low-risk moderate-reward while melee is high-risk high-reward so it's no wonder that when melee loses, it loses hard.
Now, that is not to say that I approve of shooting alpha, but the biggest way to bring that in line is to improve terrain. Without terrain tactics do not exist, even in real life. Should we get better terrain rules? Yes, and something like -1 to hit obscured targets would do wonders (while also removing army wide -1 to hits). But we should also bring obscene amounts of terrain to block most shooting. And yes, shooting out of LOS with artillery should have a penalty.
You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.
lolman1c wrote: Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.
The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.
Why do you equate melee and ranged as being direct counters to each other? Why are armies either ranged or melee? Why can't they be both?
I'll never understand the desire to make melee always equal to shooting. They are different. They fulfill different roles, they complement each other. Melee has drawbacks, the main one being that you need to get close, but it has pros such as locking down units. Relying on melee to do all the work is simply a bad tactical decision when guns exist.
Also shooting is low-risk moderate-reward while melee is high-risk high-reward so it's no wonder that when melee loses, it loses hard.
Now, that is not to say that I approve of shooting alpha, but the biggest way to bring that in line is to improve terrain. Without terrain tactics do not exist, even in real life. Should we get better terrain rules? Yes, and something like -1 to hit obscured targets would do wonders (while also removing army wide -1 to hits). But we should also bring obscene amounts of terrain to block most shooting. And yes, shooting out of LOS with artillery should have a penalty.
That's a pretty easy question to answer in 40K (and most other miniatures wargames). Better ranged weapons and melee weapons cost additional points to the overall cost of the unit. So even if the unit can have both, they are paying extra points for that utility. They aren't very likely to make full use of all of it in any given game. To the point that an opponent that specializes their units for melee or ranged combat has the edge since they can field more and just use the specialists to support one another. It is just more efficient use of points. This is on top of the fact that many units have to trade their good ranged attributes for good melee attributes such as trading a boltgun for a chainsword and bolt pistol. Most units don't even have the option to have the utility of being good in melee and range combat.
So you get the dichotomy of, "Shoot the choppy ones, and chop the shooty ones."
pm713 wrote: No I didn't miss the falling back thing. Why anyone thought that was worth doing is beyond me.
I sound like a broken record by now, I think. I really like the ability to voluntarily leave combat, I think it makes close-quarters combat a very powerful offensive tool in a balanced army.
As I've said, particularly against Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard, who make up like 80% of people I play against, having a fast, cheap unit running up the board is very strong. The faster, cheaper, and more resilient-for-cost the better. Even against armies with strong melee options, like the Tyranids, it's fairly decent to run up and charge something to lock it down if you can expect to not die to it during your fight phase.
Since most units can't shoot or charge after falling back, you've effectively disabled the unit you made it into combat with for a round. In addition, if they fall back and shoot you/countercharge you with other units, you've also taken up those units' efforts for the turn with your ideally cheap interference unit while your heavy hitters get into position and knock out key enemy units. If they don't fall back, you can fall back on your turn and knock them out with your big guns, or you can stay in with them while your big guns knock something else out.
It's a matter of efficiently too. If there's two scary enemy tanks on the field, and you don't have enough points to blow up both in a single go, you can blow one up and charge the other, taking both out of the fight, and fall back and blow up the other in the next round.
I imagine you might have a different opinion if you always play Eldar and Tau, though.
I think it's awful. Sure your unit doesn't anything when it leaves combat but my unit is butchered. There's no point in me spending points and time in getting a unit to combat if they get a turn of activity before death. Sure I could use cheap units for it but my armies don't have much of those and if they did I'd rather take cheap shooting units that work.
I never thought I'd say this but 7th cc was way better. I could actually do useful things in some combats. Except Marines.
Okay will do the rolling tmrw. Right now I just did a roll off for 2k points of pure mortors vs 2k points of space marines. Just killed 95 space marines on turn 1 which is (at base value before upgrades) 1235 pts of marines. XD lolololololol.
pm713 wrote: I think it's awful. Sure your unit doesn't anything when it leaves combat but my unit is butchered. There's no point in me spending points and time in getting a unit to combat if they get a turn of activity before death. Sure I could use cheap units for it but my armies don't have much of those and if they did I'd rather take cheap shooting units that work.
I never thought I'd say this but 7th cc was way better. I could actually do useful things in some combats. Except Marines.
I mean, 150 points to get 300-400 points of Imperial Guard tanks, or 230 points of Razorback, to not shoot for a turn sounds pretty fair to me. Even better if it takes another 230 points of Razorback or Manticore to dislodge the 150 point unit that's in their face.
And, even if you can't move 24" and charge with FLY on the first turn, fast units, cheap, and fairly survivable units are an immediate and pressing threat that much be dealt with in the turn before they hit one's lines, so they're going to have to give it some firepower that would otherwise be going towards heavier guns.
I feel like close quarters is currently more useful to me than it's ever been. It has interesting tactical options and utility, as opposed to just being a thing to avoid
But, this is an argument for another place and time. Only scout sentinels, and salamander scout vehicles will be trying anything of that sort in the Imperial Guard, and the Imperial Guard has among the best anti-charge screening in the game.
lolman1c wrote: Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.
The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.
Just did 2k points of punisher vs 2k tac marines and only rolled 90 dead marines on turn 1. I'm disappointed. This includes the heavy bolt front weapon.
lolman1c wrote: Okay will do the rolling tmrw. Right now I just did a roll off for 2k points of pure mortors vs 2k points of space marines. Just killed 95 space marines on turn 1 which is (at base value before upgrades) 1235 pts of marines. XD lolololololol.
Punishers vs. Mortars:
Spoiler:
T1:
60 Catachan Mortar teams:
~180*4.5 [re-roll shot output]*.58[re-roll 1's]*.17[to wound T8]*.33[tank armor save]=26 wounds average. That's 2 tanks.
12 (10) Cadian Punisher Tanks:
~10*40*.58*.66*.66+10*9*.58*.66*.83=129 wounds average. That's 21 mortar teams.
T2:
60 (39) Mortar teams:
~117*4.5*.58*.17*.33=17 wounds average. That's a tank, plus a tank degraded.
12 (9) Punisher Tanks:
~8*40*.58*.66*.66+8*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=110 wounds average. That's 18 mortar teams.
T3:
60 (21) Mortar teams:
~63*4.5*.58*.17*.33=10 wounds average. That finishes off the wounded tank and degrades another.
12 (8) Punisher Tanks:
~7*40*.58*.66*.66+7*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=98 wounds average. That's 16 mortar teams.
T4:
60 (5) Mortar teams:
~15*4.5*.58*.17*.33=2 wounds average. Negligible Effect, the degraded tank might become a little more degraded.
12 (8) Punisher Tanks:
~7*40*.58*.66*.66+7*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=98 wounds average. That's 16 mortar teams again, and there's no more mortars.
Land Raider Crusader vs. Mortars
Spoiler:
60 Catachan Mortar teams:
~180*4.5 [re-roll shot output]*.58[re-roll 1's]*.17[to wound T8]*.17[tank armor save]=13 wounds average. That's a degraded but still alive tank.
6 (6) Land Raider Crusader Tanks:
~5*24*.87[re-roll 1's]*.87[re-roll 1's]*.66+5*12*.87*.97*.83+1*24*.58*.87*.66+1*12*.58*.97*.83=115 wounds average. That's 20 mortar teams.
T2:
60 (40) Mortar teams:
~120*4.5*.58*.17*.17=9 wounds average. That's the wounded tank, and damage but not degradation on another.
6 (5) Land Raider Crusader Tanks:
~5*24*.87[re-roll 1's]*.87[re-roll 1's]*.66+5*12*.87*.97*.83=102 wounds average. That's 18 mortar teams.
You see where this is going.
There's no contest between tanks and mortars.
If you army is just infantry and mortars, and I know this, I'll just make a skew list of anti-infantry equipped tanks to shred through the mortars. Now, while I own neither 6 Land Raider Crusaders nor 12 Punisher tanks and wouldn't play such a list unless I was explicitly tailoring to beat the pile of mortars, the point stand, you can't win on just mortars alone.
lolman1c wrote: Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.
The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.
Just did 2k points of punisher vs 2k tac marines and only rolled 90 dead marines on turn 1. I'm disappointed. This includes the heavy bolt front weapon.
Leman Russ Punishers should also generally be coming with sponson heavy bolters. It costs 16 extra points per tank, so you'd only get another tank after 9 tanks. 9x6 is 54 shots at AP1, versus the 40 you'd get at AP0 from another tank.
Against a big pile to tactical guys, the tanks will kill about the same number of guys as the mortars, but will lose far fewer of their number in return. Tac guys are pretty good at killing mortars, they're not really good at killing T8 tanks.
lolman1c wrote: Okay will do the rolling tmrw. Right now I just did a roll off for 2k points of pure mortors vs 2k points of space marines. Just killed 95 space marines on turn 1 which is (at base value before upgrades) 1235 pts of marines. XD lolololololol.
Punishers vs. Mortars:
Spoiler:
T1:
60 Catachan Mortar teams:
~180*4.5 [re-roll shot output]*.58[re-roll 1's]*.17[to wound T8]*.33[tank armor save]=26 wounds average. That's 2 tanks.
12 (10) Cadian Punisher Tanks:
~10*40*.58*.66*.66+10*9*.58*.66*.83=129 wounds average. That's 21 mortar teams.
T2:
60 (39) Mortar teams:
~117*4.5*.58*.17*.33=17 wounds average. That's a tank, plus a tank degraded.
12 (9) Punisher Tanks:
~8*40*.58*.66*.66+8*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=110 wounds average. That's 18 mortar teams.
T3:
60 (21) Mortar teams:
~63*4.5*.58*.17*.33=10 wounds average. That finishes off the wounded tank and degrades another.
12 (8) Punisher Tanks:
~7*40*.58*.66*.66+7*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=98 wounds average. That's 16 mortar teams.
T4:
60 (5) Mortar teams:
~15*4.5*.58*.17*.33=2 wounds average. Negligible Effect, the degraded tank might become a little more degraded.
12 (8) Punisher Tanks:
~7*40*.58*.66*.66+7*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=98 wounds average. That's 16 mortar teams again, and there's no more mortars.
Land Raider Crusader vs. Mortars
Spoiler:
60 Catachan Mortar teams:
~180*4.5 [re-roll shot output]*.58[re-roll 1's]*.17[to wound T8]*.17[tank armor save]=13 wounds average. That's a degraded but still alive tank.
6 (6) Land Raider Crusader Tanks:
~5*24*.87[re-roll 1's]*.87[re-roll 1's]*.66+5*12*.87*.97*.83+1*24*.58*.87*.66+1*12*.58*.97*.83=115 wounds average. That's 20 mortar teams.
T2:
60 (40) Mortar teams:
~120*4.5*.58*.17*.17=9 wounds average. That's the wounded tank, and damage but not degradation on another.
6 (5) Land Raider Crusader Tanks:
~5*24*.87[re-roll 1's]*.87[re-roll 1's]*.66+5*12*.87*.97*.83=102 wounds average. That's 18 mortar teams.
You see where this is going.
There's no contest between tanks and mortars.
If you army is just infantry and mortars, and I know this, I'll just make a skew list of anti-infantry equipped tanks to shred through the mortars. Now, while I own neither 6 Land Raider Crusaders nor 12 Punisher tanks and wouldn't play such a list unless I was explicitly tailoring to beat the pile of mortars, the point stand, you can't win on just mortars alone.
lolman1c wrote: Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.
The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.
Just did 2k points of punisher vs 2k tac marines and only rolled 90 dead marines on turn 1. I'm disappointed. This includes the heavy bolt front weapon.
Leman Russ Punishers should also generally be coming with sponson heavy bolters. It costs 16 extra points per tank, so you'd only get another tank after 9 tanks. 9x6 is 54 shots at AP1, versus the 40 you'd get at AP0 from another tank.
Against a big pile to tactical guys, the tanks will kill about the same number of guys as the mortars, but will lose far fewer of their number in return. Tac guys are pretty good at killing mortars, they're not really good at killing T8 tanks.
I should point out the Catachan reroll doesn't work on mortars. It only applies to vehicles.
Why do you equate melee and ranged as being direct counters to each other? Why are armies either ranged or melee? Why can't they be both?
I'll never understand the desire to make melee always equal to shooting. They are different. They fulfill different roles, they complement each other. Melee has drawbacks, the main one being that you need to get close, but it has pros such as locking down units. Relying on melee to do all the work is simply a bad tactical decision when guns exist.
Also shooting is low-risk moderate-reward while melee is high-risk high-reward so it's no wonder that when melee loses, it loses hard.
Now, that is not to say that I approve of shooting alpha, but the biggest way to bring that in line is to improve terrain. Without terrain tactics do not exist, even in real life. Should we get better terrain rules? Yes, and something like -1 to hit obscured targets would do wonders (while also removing army wide -1 to hits). But we should also bring obscene amounts of terrain to block most shooting. And yes, shooting out of LOS with artillery should have a penalty.
That's a pretty easy question to answer in 40K (and most other miniatures wargames). Better ranged weapons and melee weapons cost additional points to the overall cost of the unit. So even if the unit can have both, they are paying extra points for that utility. They aren't very likely to make full use of all of it in any given game. To the point that an opponent that specializes their units for melee or ranged combat has the edge since they can field more and just use the specialists to support one another. It is just more efficient use of points. This is on top of the fact that many units have to trade their good ranged attributes for good melee attributes such as trading a boltgun for a chainsword and bolt pistol. Most units don't even have the option to have the utility of being good in melee and range combat.
So you get the dichotomy of, "Shoot the choppy ones, and chop the shooty ones."
I was more talking about the army in general. A lot of people seem to treat them like either gunlines or melee rush. IG get Ogryns which are very powerful on their own, yet people only seem to consider the shooty aspect of Guard. Meanwhile, BA have all the guns that regular marines have but everyone treats them like they only have jump packs. All my point was that doubling down on either gunline or rush is overall detrimental to your own tactics, and the fun you're trying to have. So people complaining about melee rush not being viable are complaining that a bad tactic doesn't work well.
Though, on your point about pricing, I feel that generalists should probably get a sort of discount for having ok, but not great abilities. Take marines for example, a tac marine wants to both shoot and punch things but he can't do both at the same time. If he just shoots all game, he never punches anything. If he charges one turn, then he loses a turn of shooting. Meanwhile a Khorne bezerker always wants to be in a fight, so he'll be getting maximum use out of his points by constantly being engaged.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.
The terrain is not explicitly for melee. It's for all types of armies. So long as people can camp and just hit the juiciest targets without moving, you're not going to get anything interesting or tactical. Terrain forces people to drop long range firepower for more mobility. Less firepower means fewer things dying which results in a longer game where alpha strike is greatly diminished. This helps melee as much as it helps close range skirmisher units.
Besides, charging a gunline over sparse terrain should be a terrible idea, because that's what it is.
lolman1c wrote: Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!
Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.
70-80 rubric marines, a couple rhinos, Daemon Prince, Ahriman. Snipe commanders with spells, gift of chaos, gateway, and corsucating beam to explode units. 2+ means 45 mortars can kill 6 or 7 a turn.
I should point out the Catachan reroll doesn't work on mortars. It only applies to vehicles.
Ah, yeah, I forgot Catachan infantry gets +1STR instead. OTOH, it's not a super relevant consideration, since that just sort of makes them weaker and less able to knock out the tanks.
2x exact same batallions=2000pts and 13 cp Total units:
4 company commanders
12 infantry squads with one melta each
4 hellhounds
4 leman russ demolisher with maxed out heavy flamers
Valhallan doctrine so morale and degrading stats becomes less of a problem.
Just rush up towards the enemy and burn the hell out of them.
Btw the tanks can be taken in squads so rule of three is no issue here
I don't know if it's just because I'm doing no maths here and I'm rolling hundreds of real dice but sometimes the guard just destroy the enemy turn 1 and sometimes it's the other way around. I geuss it all matters on who gets turn 1 and how random the dice are that game.
Remember in reality every little factor determines the dice roll. The slightest alteration in heat, surface, speed can make the whole 1/2 to get 4s all off....
All the maths in the world can't prepare for me rolling 7 1s on a terminator save. XD
lolman1c wrote: I don't know if it's just because I'm doing no maths here and I'm rolling hundreds of real dice but sometimes the guard just destroy the enemy turn 1 and sometimes it's the other way around. I geuss it all matters on who gets turn 1 and how random the dice are that game.
Remember in reality every little factor determines the dice roll. The slightest alteration in heat, surface, speed can make the whole 1/2 to get 4s all off....
All the maths in the world can't prepare for me rolling 7 1s on a terminator save. XD
You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.
You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,
I don't care about all that crap... to me I know in situations in my life the avarge never plays out. It's always stupidly random with percentages going way off the scale... my friends have made a tally for every time I make a set of rolls in D&D that are 1/1,000,000+ chance. Like the time I rolled 6 100s with my set of d100 dice and killed the god the DM set up to end the campaign with. Hehe... but then other times I'll roll like 10 1s in 40k so I flip a lot.
The fact is that avarages can predict many possibilities but in reality you should always expect the unexpected. This is why 40k can be hard to balance sometime. It's more than theoretical that 1 character can defeat an entire army. It's improbable but not impossible.
Earth127 wrote: Might I suggest you go play a different less dice based game then lolman? Dice can screw anyone or anything over in a game with this many of them.
Your DM made an error, if he truly didn't want the god to die, he should have been invulnerable.
Why would you be so harsh and negative to me? I never said once that anything I believe is a negative and I don't like it. In fact, I feel I was more positive telling people the beauty of 40k is how sometimes improbable and almost impossible things can happen. Like when i watched 30 grots take down a bloodletter.
A bad DM would make something you can't beat, a good DM makes something that is only possible if you use extreme skill or luck. It's extremely cinematic and we all ended up becoming gods. A fitting tale to a long adventure.
Sorry, it seems I misread the tome of your statement. It came across a lot more negative to me.
Still in general whilst people are overly relying on averages for balance discussion. They (and simulations) are usefull tools.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also @Inquisitor katherine You shouldn't go across multiple turns because basic averages and laws of chance only apply if the rolls are independent.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.
You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,
I don't think you would need to run it a couple of thousand times. I suspect just a hundred would give a reasonable curve.
While its pretty boring - but if its just a first turn barrage you could probably do that in a few hours.
You could also set up a spreadsheet to model.
I think the general problem with 40k (certainly before the DS nerf) was that it was too easy to get an army with a crude average expectation of 700-800 points damage output in the first turn. Which meant sometimes you would roll high or roll low - but you would almost always crush weaker armies which might only be able to touch 400 points (or less) if everything went right.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.
You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,
I don't think you would need to run it a couple of thousand times. I suspect just a hundred would give a reasonable curve.
While its pretty boring - but if its just a first turn barrage you could probably do that in a few hours.
You could also set up a spreadsheet to model.
I think the general problem with 40k (certainly before the DS nerf) was that it was too easy to get an army with a crude average expectation of 700-800 points damage output in the first turn. Which meant sometimes you would roll high or roll low - but you would almost always crush weaker armies which might only be able to touch 400 points (or less) if everything went right.
I have a program that rolls dice based on weapons fire and the target's stats. I'm actually setting it up to run through an IG's gunline first turn. I just need to finish up the classes and pick the "worst" list and the targets.
You make the program yourself? If so that would be epic! You could basically pay an entire game of 40k without even having to play the game! (Well a tournament game that doesn't care about terrain or large enough tables.
In my mind the best way fix IG and turn 1 would be
A. Have a larger table or half people's range turn 1. Also limit DS if you must. That way long range stuff can still fire while mass fire from infintry is limited until you get into range.
B. Just don't haveba turn 1. Turn 1 is now called turn 2 and thus the game feels longer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And itbismokay Earth. You are forgiven.
lolman1c wrote: You make the program yourself? If so that would be epic! You could basically pay an entire game of 40k without even having to play the game! (Well a tournament game that doesn't care about terrain or large enough tables.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And itbismokay Earth. You are forgiven.
Well, there are limits, because I have to tell it what to shoot and make assumptions about what is in range and in line of sight. It would be just a singular freeze frame of a specific scenario and the dice roll crunching of what happens.
Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.
Yea the slightly illegal Adepticon BA list was IG, 9 SG, and some support, which is a far cry from the ultimate BA melee shredder. I'll do some hunting.
No, that's not a good list, imo. I'm trying to figure out what best to do after the FAQ, but it isn't looking good, imo. I'm leaning towards banner of sacrifice going in every list now as a necessity.
The biggest problem with an infantry heavy guard army is getting the game done in 2-3 hours. For that reason i think the higher toughness lower model count forces are more practical.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.
You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,
I don't think you would need to run it a couple of thousand times. I suspect just a hundred would give a reasonable curve.
While its pretty boring - but if its just a first turn barrage you could probably do that in a few hours.
You could also set up a spreadsheet to model.
I think the general problem with 40k (certainly before the DS nerf) was that it was too easy to get an army with a crude average expectation of 700-800 points damage output in the first turn. Which meant sometimes you would roll high or roll low - but you would almost always crush weaker armies which might only be able to touch 400 points (or less) if everything went right.
You don't need to run it any number of times - the distribution can be derived directly. The fields of blood mathammer tool provides a proper distribution.
Marmatag wrote: In general with this rule change better lists won't bother with deep strike as a primary means of offense.
You want to be able to bring all your shooting to bear turn 1, and with solid range.
In truth i think this rule is actually so bad that they end up squatting it.
"40k is bad because of strong alpha"
*puts in a rule to nerf strong alpha*
"Wow this rule is bad, you can't strong alpha"
No it's more like :
"40k is bad because of strong alpha"
"Alright, so we remove the only counter to strong shooting alpha, which is strong melee alpha"
"Yeah, cool, but what about the strong shooting alpha"
"Oh that, we'll just leave it. We like it when both army face off, dont move, and shoot the crap out of each other turn 1. What's that, you play a melee army and won't ever be able to reach melee range because the other army has too many guns and 2-3 free turn to get into position and shoot you? You just had to buy a real army, like IG. Too bad."
Ahem.
Strong Melee Army player here.
My issue was not getting into combat turn one. My issue was, as others have noted, that before I even got to do anything I had Scions/Eldar/whatever dropping in my face and absolutely wrecking any semblance of a charge. You see to assault, I need to vacate space in the table. I cannot do that effectively when 1/3 to 1/2 of the opponents army drops in perfectly and annihilates who knows what. I love my skull cannons, but I have to leave a unit of blood letters back to keep them from getting wrecked due to some jackwad scions unit on turn one. Or even worse, the eldar player that goes first, deepstrikes in anyway and wrecks them anyway because their weapons have range for it.
It's been a sigh of relief knowing I'm not going to get absolutely ended on turn one, it means my units can move up table without worrying about getting smacked before/after my turn 1.
TLDR: The turn one nerf does not nerf assault armies, it helps move the part of the army on the table more effectively without worrying about being spread out to kingdom come to counter it.
The_Real_Chris wrote: The biggest problem with an infantry heavy guard army is getting the game done in 2-3 hours. For that reason i think the higher toughness lower model count forces are more practical.
Give this man a cookie. That's why tournament results don't show the casual power of IG lists.
The_Real_Chris wrote: The biggest problem with an infantry heavy guard army is getting the game done in 2-3 hours. For that reason i think the higher toughness lower model count forces are more practical.
Give this man a cookie. That's why tournament results don't show the casual power of IG lists.
If guard has such a strong alpha why does this matter. It couldn’t possibly be that top players ang strong armies beat guard gunlines. Guard is powerful casually because it is easy to use, it is straight forward. But there are plenty of armies that beat guard especially if they go first which is fairly likely
Guard doesn't show up on top tables because it gets its ass handed to it by Alaitoc. All the shooting in the world doesn't amount to much when you're hitting anything even vaguely important on 6's (or worse, not able to hit the MOST important target at all).
Games not going to time is actually better for Guard because as the horde player Guard gets to monopolize as much of that time as they please (thankfully chess clocks are getting rid of that problem).
Arachnofiend wrote: Guard doesn't show up on top tables because it gets its ass handed to it by Alaitoc. All the shooting in the world doesn't amount to much when you're hitting anything even vaguely important on 6's (or worse, not able to hit the MOST important target at all).
This sounds fine, but I imagine it's just conjecture. I wish I could still see the pairings for LVO.
Well, "tourney" meta is not the same as "regular" meta because of the way a "hard counter" can change not just results, but samples. Because Altioc hard counters poor BS volume of shooting ,ists, and suffers no downside (other than not being something else"oppertunity cost") whole list structures do not exist for tourney metas. The ability of "all Tyrant" lists to counter it, meant that no Eldar player tried Reaper spam...so no match ups exist.
All Tyrants also hard counters most, or all Alpha strikes, so it was very good in that meta, as terrain is very "weak" at Adepticon.
I worry that the "nurf" went too far, but it's too soon to tell. We'll just have to see...
I'd be curious to know what was in that Ynnari list, if it was pure Ynnari (kind of an oxymoron but whatever) then the AM player managed to get by without fighting any Alaitoc players. I'm a little disappointed he never got matched up against the #2 Necrons list, we were talking about that one in the tactica thread and it's a pretty insane Destroyer Cult list with 3 units of destroyers and enough HQ's to buff them all up to the max. I would have liked to see how that did against what is certainly a very strong AM list.
Arachnofiend wrote: I'd be curious to know what was in that Ynnari list, if it was pure Ynnari (kind of an oxymoron but whatever) then the AM player managed to get by without fighting any Alaitoc players. I'm a little disappointed he never got matched up against the #2 Necrons list, we were talking about that one in the tactica thread and it's a pretty insane Destroyer Cult list with 3 units of destroyers and enough HQ's to buff them all up to the max. I would have liked to see how that did against what is certainly a very strong AM list.
The sheer number of Necrons is interesting.
The #2 Necron lost to Aeldari (3) and won vs AM (43), Orks (27), RG (6), and Kronos (5).
I'm making a script that extracts the players and grabs the link the their results and i'll see if I can automate the data into a table for analysis.
I'm not terribly surprised by the success of Necrons; I feel like we have the tools to beat any army except Eldar. Destroyers especially are bananas, though my impression was that you really only wanted one unit to take advantage of their stratagem; I think I can safely say I was wrong about that.
Earth127 wrote: Sorry, it seems I misread the tome of your statement. It came across a lot more negative to me.
Still in general whilst people are overly relying on averages for balance discussion. They (and simulations) are usefull tools.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also @Inquisitor katherine You shouldn't go across multiple turns because basic averages and laws of chance only apply if the rolls are independent.
Yeah, yeah, but this took 10 minutes to do in my aero controls systems lecture and conveys the point entirely adequately. The mortars wont come close to even noticeably denting the power of the tanks.
(quite a spread, new rules, yay?)
#1 AM -- 5 wins -- faced DA, Ynarri, Raven Guard, T'au, CSM #2 Necros
#3 Aeldari
#4 Alaitoc
#5 Kronos
#6 RG #7 T'au
#8 Orks
#9 CSM #10 DE
Other AM players below. There were two losses to Ynarri (25) out of 19 losses. The second best AM player at #19 only lost to GK (17).
Spoiler:
#65
- lost to Necrons (36), Necrons (54), AC (66)
- won vs Necrons (68), Sallies (67)
#59
- lost to GK (15), Necron (35), DE (58)
- won to UM (60), DA (39)
#51
- lost to RG (6), CSM (49)
- won vs Necrons (35), Daemons (53), Necrons (54)
#50
- lost to BA (13), CSM (49)
- won vs Imperium (26), UM (55), Daemons (11)
#43
- lost to Necrons (2), Imperium (42)
- won vs Necrons (74), DA (47), DE (44)
#31
- lost to T'au (12), Ynarri (25), Orks (27)
- won vs DA (71), Chaos (28)
#29
- lost to Kronos (5), Ynarri (25), Chaos (28)
- won vs AS (64), BA (32)
#19
- lost to GK (17)
- won vs Necrons (54), CSM (49), TS (21), DE (22)
I feel it needs to be pointed out that the winning list has 665 points of actual AM units. The rest are a BA battalion with a large DC blob and a SC of Shield Captains on bike.
I was literally just about to ask if anyone had the lists of the top ten, as outside of crons, tau and orks. Who can't just go to the next codex along to cherry pick.
Faction doesn't mean much with all the soup lists that tend to make the top tables.
Spoletta wrote: You know? Seeing 9 different factions in the top 10 makes me think that after all GW knows a bit more about balancing than we give her credit for.
Not necessarily. Given GW has just changed the game in a very fundamental way the meta will be in flux.
We need to see what its like in a couple of months time.
Untill faction listings actually starts matching army composition, factions outside of Tau, Orks and Necorns are indications of nothing.
As long as I have one unit from that faction I can claim my army is that faction. It's solo purpose at the moment is allowing people to claim best in faction.
Without looking at amount of points per faction or warlord faction current listings of factions are meaningless.
IMO faction listings should require pure armies, then give listings based on most specific shared keyword. Points or Warlord are really indicative of nothing unless you are going to require say 75+% of the army be a specific faction or something.
helgrenze wrote: I have a question for the "OMG my army got nerfed bad with the deepstrike rule" crowd:
It seems that part of the issue is having to put half your army on the board and facing a turn or maybe two of shooting, correct?
So, how much of your army did you deploy before this rule came into play?
The only army I put anything near to 50% of my point in reserve was greyknights because literally - there is no other way to play them.
Tyranids I was about 35%-40%
The rest of my armies deep strike was a nice option to have - usually less than 10% of my forces were in reserve. Like a squad of reviers - or clagar just so I could get my aura in the right place. Or a Tau commander to hit a flank.
IMO the real issue with DS was the stupid drops rule. Where players could put 94% of their points in reserve because they took 12 cheap units and hid them all over their deployment zone to DS 7 tyrants and 4 mawlocks.
(quite a spread, new rules, yay?)
#1 AM -- 5 wins -- faced DA, Ynarri, Raven Guard, T'au, CSM #2 Necros
#3 Aeldari
#4 Alaitoc
#5 Kronos
#6 RG #7 T'au
#8 Orks
#9 CSM #10 DE
Other AM players below. There were two losses to Ynarri (25) out of 19 losses. The second best AM player at #19 only lost to GK (17).
Spoiler:
#65
- lost to Necrons (36), Necrons (54), AC (66)
- won vs Necrons (68), Sallies (67)
#59
- lost to GK (15), Necron (35), DE (58)
- won to UM (60), DA (39)
#51
- lost to RG (6), CSM (49)
- won vs Necrons (35), Daemons (53), Necrons (54)
#50
- lost to BA (13), CSM (49)
- won vs Imperium (26), UM (55), Daemons (11)
#43
- lost to Necrons (2), Imperium (42)
- won vs Necrons (74), DA (47), DE (44)
#31
- lost to T'au (12), Ynarri (25), Orks (27)
- won vs DA (71), Chaos (28)
#29
- lost to Kronos (5), Ynarri (25), Chaos (28)
- won vs AS (64), BA (32)
#19
- lost to GK (17)
- won vs Necrons (54), CSM (49), TS (21), DE (22)
I feel it needs to be pointed out that the winning list has 665 points of actual AM units. The rest are a BA battalion with a large DC blob and a SC of Shield Captains on bike.
correct me if I am wrong but it appears that ravengaurd player who came in 6th place was 3-2 in the tournament. What kind of joke scoring is this?
Any information on the AM list that went undefeated?
basicly the last 2 rounds were per 8 players. that's why the 9th ranked player has all wins. He just didn't rank in the top at the end of round 2. Interesting system, pretty generours price wise across the participation roster.
Yeah, as strong as gaurd is they should just list stuff soup. Guard has strength but soup can be almost unbeatable (especially when girly man used to buff everything.
Ordana wrote: Any mixed army, or with more then 25% points spend on a different faction should just be called Imperium/Chaos/ect
Meh to me I would still go with most specific keyword. But they don't seem to want to give up that many "awards". To me BA + Dark Angels should be an Adeptus Astartes list, not imperium, but BA + guard is imperium.
I feel it needs to be pointed out that the winning list has 665 points of actual AM units. The rest are a BA battalion with a large DC blob and a SC of Shield Captains on bike.
That seems odd as it isn't listed as Imperium like some others. Does anyone have the actual list?
basicly the last 2 rounds were per 8 players. that's why the 9th ranked player has all wins. He just didn't rank in the top at the end of round 2. Interesting system, pretty generours price wise across the participation roster.
Ahh and I see - and 3 hour rounds too. A much more realistic amount of time than 2 1/2 hours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: LOL @ "665 points of guard at 2k makes it a guard list."
Stronk hyperbole.
I agree that isn't a guard list. They should just calling these armies imperial soup - that's what it is.
Unit1126PLL wrote: LOL @ "665 points of guard at 2k makes it a guard list."
Stronk hyperbole.
I agree that isn't a guard list. They should just calling these armies imperial soup - that's what it is.
Not that it matters, but I'd still like to see hard evidence that it is a soup list. There are several other players in that tournament listed as Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari. I don't see a reason why they would treat this player differently.
I also recall the last tournament someone made a claim that wasn't true, so...
I feel it needs to be pointed out that the winning list has 665 points of actual AM units. The rest are a BA battalion with a large DC blob and a SC of Shield Captains on bike.
That seems odd as it isn't listed as Imperium like some others. Does anyone have the actual list?
Cadian Brigade: 665 points
2 CC, no upgrades (one with RoLC, other is warlord with KA and Grand Strategist)
1 Primaris Pysker, force stave(Night Shroud, Psychic Barrier)
6 IS (4 with mortar teams)
3 Platoon Commanders, no upgrades
1 5 man Roughriders, no upgrades
2 Scout Sentinels, no upgrades
3 HWS, all mortars
BA Battalion
2 JP Captains, TH/SS (one with Veritas Vitae, other with Angels Wing)
Mephiston(Quicken, Unleash Rage, Wings of Sanguinius)
3 5 man Scouts, no upgrades
1 8 man JPDC, no upgrades
Custodes Supreme Command
3 Shield Captains on bike, hurricane bolted and misericordia (one with Auric Aquilis)
Man I can't wait for spacewolves to come out and every imperial soup army has a cheap gaurd brigade 3 wolf lords 3 sheild capatains. This is some quality stuff right here GW.
I feel it needs to be pointed out that the winning list has 665 points of actual AM units. The rest are a BA battalion with a large DC blob and a SC of Shield Captains on bike.
That seems odd as it isn't listed as Imperium like some others. Does anyone have the actual list?
Cadian Brigade: 665 points
2 CC, no upgrades (one with RoLC, other is warlord with KA and Grand Strategist)
1 Primaris Pysker, force stave(Night Shroud, Psychic Barrier)
6 IS (4 with mortar teams)
3 Platoon Commanders, no upgrades
1 5 man Roughriders, no upgrades
2 Scout Sentinels, no upgrades
3 HWS, all mortars
BA Battalion
2 JP Captains, TH/SS (one with Veritas Vitae, other with Angels Wing)
Mephiston(Quicken, Unleash Rage, Wings of Sanguinius)
3 5 man Scouts, no upgrades
1 8 man JPDC, no upgrades
Custodes Supreme Command
3 Shield Captains on bike, hurricane bolted and misericordia (one with Auric Aquilis)
Transcribed from BCP as the original list was submitted as a picture. Funny fact, this list spends 7 CP on extra relics.
Edit: autocorrect fail
That is greatly appreciated. It's very weird that they didn't list it as soup.
So, that raises a new question - how much of a role did relics play in this list? The bsIGCP generation would more than make up for the CP relic spend.
Quite an interesting army. I need to chew on this one for a bit.
Pre-nerf that total is about 820 points. Post-nerf it's a bit higher.
I should also add that my list is balanced and only runs 2 Flying Hive Tyrants. Although, now that they've been nerfed and deep strike sucks, i will probably only run 1, if that.
Synapse is a major issue for Tyranids if you don't have something that can cover it. The ability to deep strike for me was keeping them alive but also being able to provide forward synapse beacons for my assault forces. Yes Genestealers can race across the board but if you're outside synapse range the whole squad crumbles and you've lost a huge chunk of points.
I am reinventing my army as a gunline. It is the only way to play.
I am reinventing my army as a gunline. It is the only way to play.
The Imperium soup list shown opposite is literally not a gunline. It's biggest damage dealers are melee - mostly deepstrike. It has no implicit anti-tank. There are some other shenanigans going on there, but not enough to be the sole reason for it's success.
I am reinventing my army as a gunline. It is the only way to play.
The Imperium soup list shown opposite is literally not a gunline. It's biggest damage dealers are melee - mostly deepstrike. It has no implicit anti-tank. There are some other shenanigans going on there, but not enough to be the sole reason for it's success.
The 3rd place list is built around 3 full units of Shining Spears. 4th place has about 500 points in Succubi, wyches, and reavers. 9th place has what looks like a bloodletter bomb (30 man squad) plus 30 plague bearers and 3 CCDps (One each of Khorne, Slannesh, and Tzeentch). This list was also undefeated, but ranked low do to the scoring system.
3 of the top 9 ( Tyranid, tau, necron) have basically all of their power in long range shooting. The rest have significant portions of their lists in CC oriented units, or very short range shooting that does not fit the definition of a standard "gunline".
I am reinventing my army as a gunline. It is the only way to play.
The Imperium soup list shown opposite is literally not a gunline. It's biggest damage dealers are melee - mostly deepstrike. It has no implicit anti-tank. There are some other shenanigans going on there, but not enough to be the sole reason for it's success.
The 3rd place list is built around 3 full units of Shining Spears. 4th place has about 500 points in Succubi, wyches, and reavers. 9th place has what looks like a bloodletter bomb (30 man squad) plus 30 plague bearers and 3 CCDps (One each of Khorne, Slannesh, and Tzeentch). This list was also undefeated, but ranked low do to the scoring system.
3 of the top 9 ( Tyranid, tau, necron) have basically all of their power in long range shooting. The rest have significant portions of their lists in CC oriented units, or very short range shooting that does not fit the definition of a standard "gunline".
Thanks - this is available as a subscriber on the phone app, right?
So the argument here is that Guard is Evil and Awful and we should all be mad at them, but I have yet to see any pure guard army (or even 75% guard army) place in the top 10 of anything. All the wins are using a guard brigade to snag some CPs. At this point in time Guard are the big bad boogey men who are catching all the blame for everything bad in the game despite not making any waves on their own. I guess this is how playing non-Triple Riptide Tau felt last edition =P
Frankly it makes me sad that this is the issue, and there could be some sort of rule to fix this. Some sort of limitation based on how you have mixed up your army and what happens to your choices. Kind of like in AoS when you mix and match you are stuck with the generic Order/Chaos/Death/Destruction general abilities and relics, and have no access to army specific ones. I would like to see in the next Chapter approved (especially with the majority of army books out at that point) a restriction along those lines. I.E. if you take an imperial soup list (maybe something along the lines of a % of your army must come from one book to qualify) then you only have access to a specific list of generic stratagems and relics. Alternatively, and easier to implement, a CP tax of 1 for any Stratagems you use that are not part of your main army.
I am reinventing my army as a gunline. It is the only way to play.
The Imperium soup list shown opposite is literally not a gunline. It's biggest damage dealers are melee - mostly deepstrike. It has no implicit anti-tank. There are some other shenanigans going on there, but not enough to be the sole reason for it's success.
The 3rd place list is built around 3 full units of Shining Spears. 4th place has about 500 points in Succubi, wyches, and reavers. 9th place has what looks like a bloodletter bomb (30 man squad) plus 30 plague bearers and 3 CCDps (One each of Khorne, Slannesh, and Tzeentch). This list was also undefeated, but ranked low do to the scoring system.
3 of the top 9 ( Tyranid, tau, necron) have basically all of their power in long range shooting. The rest have significant portions of their lists in CC oriented units, or very short range shooting that does not fit the definition of a standard "gunline".
Thanks - this is available as a subscriber on the phone app, right?
generalchaos34 wrote: So the argument here is that Guard is Evil and Awful and we should all be mad at them, but I have yet to see any pure guard army (or even 75% guard army) place in the top 10 of anything. All the wins are using a guard brigade to snag some CPs. At this point in time Guard are the big bad boogey men who are catching all the blame for everything bad in the game despite not making any waves on their own. I guess this is how playing non-Triple Riptide Tau felt last edition =P
Frankly it makes me sad that this is the issue, and there could be some sort of rule to fix this. Some sort of limitation based on how you have mixed up your army and what happens to your choices. Kind of like in AoS when you mix and match you are stuck with the generic Order/Chaos/Death/Destruction general abilities and relics, and have no access to army specific ones. I would like to see in the next Chapter approved (especially with the majority of army books out at that point) a restriction along those lines. I.E. if you take an imperial soup list (maybe something along the lines of a % of your army must come from one book to qualify) then you only have access to a specific list of generic stratagems and relics. Alternatively, and easier to implement, a CP tax of 1 for any Stratagems you use that are not part of your main army.
The problem now seams to be that this goes against GW and ITC's vision of the future of 8th edition. (I'm not saying ITC had a hand in GW's decision I just think they're probably being given more insider information that players will ever see so have got on board with GW's decision.
Guards biggest issue is a casual guard list is running about an 7-8 out of 10 for damager per point efficiency. Most casual lists outside of alitoc are running at between 3-7. As a pure faction vrs pure faction they are incredibly strong.
The reason they arn't placing top at a tournament is there is no disadvantage to souping in BA or custards to run an imperial soup list which hits about a 9.5 out of 10 for damage per point.
generalchaos34 wrote: So the argument here is that Guard is Evil and Awful and we should all be mad at them, but I have yet to see any pure guard army (or even 75% guard army) place in the top 10 of anything. All the wins are using a guard brigade to snag some CPs. At this point in time Guard are the big bad boogey men who are catching all the blame for everything bad in the game despite not making any waves on their own. I guess this is how playing non-Triple Riptide Tau felt last edition =P
Frankly it makes me sad that this is the issue, and there could be some sort of rule to fix this. Some sort of limitation based on how you have mixed up your army and what happens to your choices. Kind of like in AoS when you mix and match you are stuck with the generic Order/Chaos/Death/Destruction general abilities and relics, and have no access to army specific ones. I would like to see in the next Chapter approved (especially with the majority of army books out at that point) a restriction along those lines. I.E. if you take an imperial soup list (maybe something along the lines of a % of your army must come from one book to qualify) then you only have access to a specific list of generic stratagems and relics. Alternatively, and easier to implement, a CP tax of 1 for any Stratagems you use that are not part of your main army.
Well, the intent of the thread was to get to the bottom of why people keep using IG Gunlines as a battering ram for why things don't work. And as we can see - it seems no one is taking them as such. I'm currently going through all the lists in this tournament to see if I can find one.
The #19 player was 50/50 Melee Catachan/Custard. Mortar spam, Harker, Yarrick, Straken, Priest, Custard Bikes, etc.
Kill mortars as they are for points and you might see IG get abused less coincidentally. The mortars are basically doing the chaff clearing for the melee to break through.
Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
Here's your gunline IG, I guess. 3 superheavies, PG, and mortars.
Lost to Necrons (2) and the destroyers list badly 35 to 6.
Beat Necrons (74) - 34 to 6. This guy took a Monolith and nothing else to get shot. No destroyers, arks, etc. Just Infantry, Spyders, and Scarabs.
Beat DA (47) - 23 to 16. Intercessors, Hellblasters, 2 Repulsors, 3 Shield Captains on Bikes.
Lost to Imperium (42) - 30 to 26. Mortars, Scions, Scout Sentinels, and Custard Bikes
Beat DE (44) - 29 to 23. No list available.
Spoiler:
#59
VALHALLAN
Shadowsword
Shadowsword
Stormlord
VOSTROYAN
CC P. Psyker
IS, PG, Mortar
IS, PG, Mortar
IS, PG, Mortar
Vets, 4x PG
CADIAN
CC HWS, 3x Mortar
HWS, 3x Mortar
HWS, 3x Mortar
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
I think people need to plan for Mortars & Custard Bikes. That seems to be the most common theme. Be durable enough so mortars can't scratch you and find a way to handle the bikes.
Here's the fabled IG Gunline.
#31
3 TC, BC/LC/Plasma
4 IS, Mortar
3 LR Conquerors, LC 1 Manticore
BA Jump Captain
Mephiston
3 Scout Squads
Beat DA (71) - 29 to 11.
Lost to Tau (12) - 25 to 24.
Beat Chaos (28) - 34 to 14.
Lost to Ynarri (25) - 24 to 11.
Lost to Orks (27) - 24 to 22.
generalchaos34 wrote: So the argument here is that Guard is Evil and Awful and we should all be mad at them, but I have yet to see any pure guard army (or even 75% guard army) place in the top 10 of anything. All the wins are using a guard brigade to snag some CPs. At this point in time Guard are the big bad boogey men who are catching all the blame for everything bad in the game despite not making any waves on their own. I guess this is how playing non-Triple Riptide Tau felt last edition =P
Frankly it makes me sad that this is the issue, and there could be some sort of rule to fix this. Some sort of limitation based on how you have mixed up your army and what happens to your choices. Kind of like in AoS when you mix and match you are stuck with the generic Order/Chaos/Death/Destruction general abilities and relics, and have no access to army specific ones. I would like to see in the next Chapter approved (especially with the majority of army books out at that point) a restriction along those lines. I.E. if you take an imperial soup list (maybe something along the lines of a % of your army must come from one book to qualify) then you only have access to a specific list of generic stratagems and relics. Alternatively, and easier to implement, a CP tax of 1 for any Stratagems you use that are not part of your main army.
Well, the intent of the thread was to get to the bottom of why people keep using IG Gunlines as a battering ram for why things don't work. And as we can see - it seems no one is taking them as such. I'm currently going through all the lists in this tournament to see if I can find one.
The #19 player was 50/50 Melee Catachan/Custard. Mortar spam, Harker, Yarrick, Straken, Priest, Custard Bikes, etc.
Kill mortars as they are for points and you might see IG get abused less coincidentally. The mortars are basically doing the chaff clearing for the melee to break through.
I can agree with mortars, they need to go up 5 points at least, if not more. I am also in the camp of the Infantry Squad Guardsman being 5 points instead of 4. It would be in line with other pricing and it would also do well to align the costs of core guardsman units with Conscripts at 4, Guardsman at 5, and Veterans at 6.
I think one of the core problems with this edition is not rewarding or penalizing players enough to take a single army list. They really should have SOMETHING for taking a pure list, as there is currently no reason to not cherry pick your favorite units into several detachments.
So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Im kind of surprised myself, all this gloom and doom has been about how powerful the guard are, and how their gunlines invalidate everything. and I haven't even seen a multi-regiment build get any sort of placing (which I honestly thought was going to be a thing, like taking Catachan tanks, Valhallan conscripts, and Cadian Heavy Weapons, but that has yet to appear it seems). From most things I have seen guard are there for the CPs and then shielding powerful melee characters such as shield captains. Granted Mortars do their fair share of heavy lifting but its still not what guard ARE, which is waves of disposable men backed up by artillery and armor, hoping to take a point and as many casualties as possible. Then again you can argue they are being fluffy by providing meat shields for the Astartes who come to steal all the glory.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Im kind of surprised myself, all this gloom and doom has been about how powerful the guard are, and how their gunlines invalidate everything. and I haven't even seen a multi-regiment build get any sort of placing (which I honestly thought was going to be a thing, like taking Catachan tanks, Valhallan conscripts, and Cadian Heavy Weapons, but that has yet to appear it seems). From most things I have seen guard are there for the CPs and then shielding powerful melee characters such as shield captains. Granted Mortars do their fair share of heavy lifting but its still not what guard ARE, which is waves of disposable men backed up by artillery and armor, hoping to take a point and as many casualties as possible. Then again you can argue they are being fluffy by providing meat shields for the Astartes who come to steal all the glory.
I argue they are doing exactly what we see them doing in most fluff (dying spectacularly until other imperium units come in and do the heavy lifting). What I really can stand is the constant panic about the fabled imperial guard gun line that cant be beaten and the constant fear that an all-guard army could win a tournament. I think it would be great to see an all guard list win every once in a while.... like I would like every army to do so.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Well, few people seem to take pure guard without being a hammy superheavy or artillery list. Both of those when skewed too far will have a seriously hard time.
If people took one superheavy instead of 3, some melee that can guard well, and the other huge range of tools they might see success.
As it stands the parts of IG that get used in soup ARE broken to an extent (I wont assign a degree). That's why they are so commonly used. And their skew lists could be broken with proper matchups, which is why there are so many complaints.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Im kind of surprised myself, all this gloom and doom has been about how powerful the guard are, and how their gunlines invalidate everything. and I haven't even seen a multi-regiment build get any sort of placing (which I honestly thought was going to be a thing, like taking Catachan tanks, Valhallan conscripts, and Cadian Heavy Weapons, but that has yet to appear it seems). From most things I have seen guard are there for the CPs and then shielding powerful melee characters such as shield captains. Granted Mortars do their fair share of heavy lifting but its still not what guard ARE, which is waves of disposable men backed up by artillery and armor, hoping to take a point and as many casualties as possible. Then again you can argue they are being fluffy by providing meat shields for the Astartes who come to steal all the glory.
I argue they are doing exactly what we see them doing in most fluff (dying spectacularly until other imperium units come in and do the heavy lifting). What I really can stand is the constant panic about the fabled imperial guard gun line that cant be beaten and the constant fear that an all-guard army could win a tournament. I think it would be great to see an all guard list win every once in a while.... like I would like every army to do so.
As long as eldar and the soup lists can dish out an array of rule bending and silly combinations pure guard will never have a place, just like you will never see pure AdMech or pure Daemons do anything. I would love to see pure lists get some sort of boost (or soup lists get a penalty) and therefore give those lists a chance when they are only using units from their own codex and working with that handicap.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Well, few people seem to take pure guard without being a hammy superheavy or artillery list. Both of those when skewed too far will have a seriously hard time.
If people took one superheavy instead of 3, some melee that can guard well, and the other huge range of tools they might see success.
As it stands the parts of IG that get used in soup ARE broken to an extent (I wont assign a degree). That's why they are so commonly used. And their skew lists could be broken with proper matchups, which is why there are so many complaints.
Once again your post shows the hilarious bias on DAKKA
>soup army is broken
>blame guard
>rest of soup if fine
Why is it that when there is a 2k point list with only 600 points of guard only the guard part is broken? They really just need to make it so that you cant use army x CP on army y strategems and this whole issue goes away
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Well, few people seem to take pure guard without being a hammy superheavy or artillery list. Both of those when skewed too far will have a seriously hard time.
If people took one superheavy instead of 3, some melee that can guard well, and the other huge range of tools they might see success.
As it stands the parts of IG that get used in soup ARE broken to an extent (I wont assign a degree). That's why they are so commonly used. And their skew lists could be broken with proper matchups, which is why there are so many complaints.
Once again your post shows the hilarious bias on DAKKA
>soup army is broken
>blame guard
>rest of soup if fine
Why is it that when there is a 2k point list with only 600 points of guard only the guard part is broken? They really just need to make it so that you cant use army x CP on army y strategems and this whole issue goes away
What he said x100. If we levied a CP "tax" of 1 or more onto using a stratagem that was not your "core" Army that would help a lot of these issues
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Well, few people seem to take pure guard without being a hammy superheavy or artillery list. Both of those when skewed too far will have a seriously hard time.
If people took one superheavy instead of 3, some melee that can guard well, and the other huge range of tools they might see success.
As it stands the parts of IG that get used in soup ARE broken to an extent (I wont assign a degree). That's why they are so commonly used. And their skew lists could be broken with proper matchups, which is why there are so many complaints.
Once again your post shows the hilarious bias on DAKKA
>soup army is broken
>blame guard
>rest of soup if fine
Why is it that when there is a 2k point list with only 600 points of guard only the guard part is broken? They really just need to make it so that you cant use army x CP on army y strategems and this whole issue goes away
Where did I say that the other part of the army wasn't a problem?
Is there no reason why everyone takes mortars or is that just a fluke?
Is there no reason why RoLC and Kurov gets taken or is that just a fluke, too?
Yes some of those things are "just CP" batteries. That doesn't mean they're not a problem. And that doesn't mean IG needs a direct nerf to solve the problem.
The single biggest chance to reduce Guard soup without hurting pure guard armies?
Nerf Grand Strategist to 1 6+ roll per Stratagem. instead of 1 5+ per CP.
You can make IG squads cost 100 points and take no heavy weapons and people will still run a guard detachment simply because no other army in the game can come close to the effect of Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquila.
Combine that with CP intensive armies like BA and you have the apparent current top Imperial army.
This is not to say that I do not believe some (maybe many) units in the Guard army are undercosted but the root of IG soup is the CP battery.
Martel732 wrote: Guardsmen are clearly better than a 4 pt model. The only question is whether they are 5 or 6.
With skitarii rangers being 7 points, Tau FW at 7 pts and Ork boyz at 6 pts, Guardsmen at 6 points is too much. I'd stick them at 5 ppm and adjust any other infantry around them.
I feel it needs to be pointed out that the winning list has 665 points of actual AM units. The rest are a BA battalion with a large DC blob and a SC of Shield Captains on bike.
That seems odd as it isn't listed as Imperium like some others. Does anyone have the actual list?
Cadian Brigade: 665 points
2 CC, no upgrades (one with RoLC, other is warlord with KA and Grand Strategist)
1 Primaris Pysker, force stave(Night Shroud, Psychic Barrier)
6 IS (4 with mortar teams)
3 Platoon Commanders, no upgrades
1 5 man Roughriders, no upgrades
2 Scout Sentinels, no upgrades
3 HWS, all mortars
BA Battalion
2 JP Captains, TH/SS (one with Veritas Vitae, other with Angels Wing)
Mephiston(Quicken, Unleash Rage, Wings of Sanguinius)
3 5 man Scouts, no upgrades
1 8 man JPDC, no upgrades
Custodes Supreme Command
3 Shield Captains on bike, hurricane bolted and misericordia (one with Auric Aquilis)
Transcribed from BCP as the original list was submitted as a picture. Funny fact, this list spends 7 CP on extra relics.
Edit: autocorrect fail
That is greatly appreciated. It's very weird that they didn't list it as soup.
So, that raises a new question - how much of a role did relics play in this list? The bsIGCP generation would more than make up for the CP relic spend.
Quite an interesting army. I need to chew on this one for a bit.
The BA are very CP hungry. A single captain can use up to 7 CP per turn (Deepstrike redeploy, 3d6 charge, d3 extra attacks and fight twice). The DC need another 2 CP before the game to get a free move up.
Pregame both captains likely take Death Visions (+1 attack, ignore wounds on 6) for another CP each,
The Custodes can take a free re-roll per turn per model for 2 CP each
The CP battery is the heart of the army that makes it work over multiple turns. Hence why he also brought a second CP regain in the BA Veritas Vitae. He can actually gain CP from using stratagems.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Well, few people seem to take pure guard without being a hammy superheavy or artillery list. Both of those when skewed too far will have a seriously hard time.
If people took one superheavy instead of 3, some melee that can guard well, and the other huge range of tools they might see success.
As it stands the parts of IG that get used in soup ARE broken to an extent (I wont assign a degree). That's why they are so commonly used. And their skew lists could be broken with proper matchups, which is why there are so many complaints.
Once again your post shows the hilarious bias on DAKKA
>soup army is broken
>blame guard
>rest of soup if fine
Why is it that when there is a 2k point list with only 600 points of guard only the guard part is broken? They really just need to make it so that you cant use army x CP on army y strategems and this whole issue goes away
Where did I say that the other part of the army wasn't a problem?
Is there no reason why everyone takes mortars or is that just a fluke?
Is there no reason why RoLC and Kurov gets taken or is that just a fluke, too?
Yes some of those things are "just CP" batteries. That doesn't mean they're not a problem. And that doesn't mean IG needs a direct nerf to solve the problem.
Everything you named isnt broken its simply the cheapest way to generate CP for other imperium armies. You see mortars in every list because its cheap to complete battalions and you see CP generating items because its more CP to use on other imperial armies. Like I said simply make it so you cant use CP on other parts of your army and problem is solved instantly.
Asmodios wrote: So it seems like nothing has changed in the effectiveness of guard. Guard is unable to win tournaments as a mono faction codex but get called "broken" over and over for being nothing but CP generation and some cheap bodies for other imperium codexes.
Well, few people seem to take pure guard without being a hammy superheavy or artillery list. Both of those when skewed too far will have a seriously hard time.
If people took one superheavy instead of 3, some melee that can guard well, and the other huge range of tools they might see success.
As it stands the parts of IG that get used in soup ARE broken to an extent (I wont assign a degree). That's why they are so commonly used. And their skew lists could be broken with proper matchups, which is why there are so many complaints.
Once again your post shows the hilarious bias on DAKKA
>soup army is broken
>blame guard
>rest of soup if fine
Why is it that when there is a 2k point list with only 600 points of guard only the guard part is broken? They really just need to make it so that you cant use army x CP on army y strategems and this whole issue goes away
Where did I say that the other part of the army wasn't a problem?
Is there no reason why everyone takes mortars or is that just a fluke?
Is there no reason why RoLC and Kurov gets taken or is that just a fluke, too?
Yes some of those things are "just CP" batteries. That doesn't mean they're not a problem. And that doesn't mean IG needs a direct nerf to solve the problem.
Everything you named isnt broken its simply the cheapest way to generate CP for other imperium armies. You see mortars in every list because its cheap to complete battalions and you see CP generating items because its more CP to use on other imperial armies. Like I said simply make it so you cant use CP on other parts of your army and problem is solved instantly.
Mortars are pretty excellent for the price though, so it isn't like they're an actual tax to bring.
Vaktathi wrote: A simple rule limiting CP's and CP's generated to the factions or specific detachments that generated them would solve a lot of problems.
Basically this - let players soup all they like, but you can only spend CP within the faction that generates it. That way taking army X solely as a CP generator to make army Y extremely stronger just plain goes away.
Martel732 wrote: Guardsmen are clearly better than a 4 pt model. The only question is whether they are 5 or 6.
With skitarii rangers being 7 points, Tau FW at 7 pts and Ork boyz at 6 pts, Guardsmen at 6 points is too much. I'd stick them at 5 ppm and adjust any other infantry around them.
Yeah, at this point with the points of everything else going down, Guardsmen are at best a 5 point model. Heck, just nerf mortars with a +5 point cost and a -1 for out of los firing and at this point I think the dex would be fine.
I do think the boogieman guard gunline is a strawman and suffers a lot from Shroedinger's Syndrome, where a given army has any tool it needs to counter any tactic used against them - everything from a table full of LOS blocking terrain (so manticores can be good) to a table without any LOS blocking terrain (so Russes can be good), conscripts/infantry squads who are simultaneously in rapid-fire with every model while spreading out enough to be an impenetrable screen, etc. etc.
Guard do have all the tools, but they can't bring them in the same army because of points limits, or if they do then the army becomes a balanced army, with some artillery, some russes, some infantry, some bullgryns/crusaders, some heavy weapons, etc etc.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do think the boogieman guard gunline is a strawman and suffers a lot from Shroedinger's Syndrome, where a given army has any tool it needs to counter any tactic used against them - everything from a table full of LOS blocking terrain (so manticores can be good) to a table without any LOS blocking terrain (so Russes can be good), conscripts/infantry squads who are simultaneously in rapid-fire with every model while spreading out enough to be an impenetrable screen, etc. etc.
Guard do have all the tools, but they can't bring them in the same army because of points limits, or if they do then the army becomes a balanced army, with some artillery, some russes, some infantry, some bullgryns/crusaders, some heavy weapons, etc etc.
Right. In some other thread I tried to actually pin down what someone was saying would sweep the meta and destroy everything, and they mentioned at least 90 infantry, the tank-killing superheavy, and tons of basilisks and mortars, but when you add it up to 2000pts, you get an army that's not nearly as impossible to beat as is generally alleged. "oh, so tons of basilisks actually means "four" in this context, because that's what you can actually fit in 2000pts? and they don't actually do that much damage?"
Backspacehacker wrote: ONe thing i have found counters guard, is anything that gives them a -1 to hit.
ALL THE SHOOTING IN THE WORLD!
iiiity bitty hit chance.
IIRC at tournaments you see them loosing to atioc all the time.
Any time you point out a thing that a marine army can do to counter-build against a highly skewed across the table gunline, The Usual Suspects will just respond with "Yeah well, what about the marine builds that don't counter that form of skew? What are they supposed to do? Why can't I take units that have a disadvantage against gunline skew and have them do well, huh, what kind of fair is that?"
I've currently got a 300-page list dump for an upcoming london GT, and it is highly evident looking through it that we are NOT seeing an emerging pure gunline meta. This is before the tournament happens, so I'm just looking at every list without being able to sort by "who won" the actual meta is looking to be about:
33% Overwhelmingly Shooty (i.e. less than 500pts spent on melee units)
42% Mixed (more than 500pts spent on shooting and melee units)
25% Overwhelmingly Stabby (i.e. less than 500pts spent on shooting units)
Almost all Imperial and Eldar Soup lists trend towards about 500-700 points of melee support, 1300-1500 shooting. Nids lists (with GSC/Brood Bros factored in), Drukhari lists, and Chaos Soup lists tend towards the opposite, 500-700 points of efficient downrange shooting supporting 1300-1500 points of melee units. Tau, Necron, and Single Pure Imperial Faction lists trend towards being the purest shooters, with GK and BA being the exception for imperials and Admech mostly falling into the Mixed category with almost every list featuring 500-700 points of Goonsquad+Electropriests. Daemons, Thousand Sons, the few Harlequins and Orks seem to be the purest punchers, with most having only nominal shooting.
Imperial Soup, Eldar Soup, and Chaos soup are still the 500-pound gorillas by numbers of entries, and unsurprisingly, the least common factions are all the indexes+GK.
Marmatag wrote: Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
Do we know his list? I bet hes running at least 6 carnifex plus a big unit of Hive Gaurd.
Marmatag wrote: Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
Do we know his list? I bet hes running at least 6 carnifex plus a big unit of Hive Gaurd.
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
3x Rippers
3x Rippers
3x Rippers
6 HG, Impaler
6 HG, Impaler
6 HG, Impaler
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Marmatag wrote: Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
Do we know his list? I bet hes running at least 6 carnifex plus a big unit of Hive Gaurd.
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
3x Rippers
3x Rippers
3x Rippers
6 HG, Impaler
6 HG, Impaler
6 HG, Impaler
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Tyrranofex, Rupture, Stinger Salvo
Not exactly what I expected but a full shooty list for sure...It has a pretty brutal weakness though which I am surprised didn't really cost him. He has only 2 synapse creatures. So once those go down hes -1 to hit if he doesn't shoot the closest target. What competitive list can't drop 2 tyrants in 1 turn - he doesn't even have a neurothrope? I guess I will never understand this until i actaully experience it. Going to my first ITC event mid may in Georgia.
Not exactly what I expected but a full shooty list for sure...It has a pretty brutal weakness though which I am surprised didn't really cost him. He has only 2 synapse creatures. So once those go down hes -1 to hit if he doesn't shoot the closest target. What competitive list can't drop 2 tyrants in 1 turn - he doesn't even have a neurothrope? I guess I will never understand this until i actaully experience it. Going to my first ITC event mid may in Georgia.
I think that's the broader point - people keep saying how a mass of lascannons (or gunline) will ruin anything they take first turn, but so many of those lists didn't even have whiff of a lascannon.
I see a lot of talk about Mortar Spam.
Ok... But what about Flyers?
AM has one seriously vicious combos for flyers.
Air Wing Detachment
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Valhallan Doc.
480 Pts,
120 (Heavy 40) S5, 0ap, 1dam shots, Strafing Run (+1 to hit units without FLY)
Have to get them below 4 wounds left to see any effect.
They could be combined into a single unit, but this way you could have the main body be a different Doc or Army.
This would be a Mob army sweeper and with that many dice you can wound anything.
helgrenze wrote: I see a lot of talk about Mortar Spam.
Ok... But what about Flyers?
AM has one seriously vicious combos for flyers.
Air Wing Detachment
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Valhallan Doc.
480 Pts,
120 (Heavy 40) S5, 0ap, 1dam shots, Strafing Run (+1 to hit units without FLY)
Have to get them below 4 wounds left to see any effect.
They could be combined into a single unit, but this way you could have the main body be a different Doc or Army.
This would be a Mob army sweeper and with that many dice you can wound anything.
Vultures don't have the REGIMENT keyword, so can't be Valhallan.
helgrenze wrote: I see a lot of talk about Mortar Spam.
Ok... But what about Flyers?
AM has one seriously vicious combos for flyers.
Air Wing Detachment
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Valhallan Doc.
480 Pts,
120 (Heavy 40) S5, 0ap, 1dam shots, Strafing Run (+1 to hit units without FLY)
Have to get them below 4 wounds left to see any effect.
They could be combined into a single unit, but this way you could have the main body be a different Doc or Army.
This would be a Mob army sweeper and with that many dice you can wound anything.
Vultures don't have the REGIMENT keyword, so can't be Valhallan.
Was working off Battlescribe, which seems to allow it.
helgrenze wrote: I see a lot of talk about Mortar Spam.
Ok... But what about Flyers?
AM has one seriously vicious combos for flyers.
Air Wing Detachment
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Vulture Gunship with Twin Punisher Gatling Cannons
Valhallan Doc.
480 Pts,
120 (Heavy 40) S5, 0ap, 1dam shots, Strafing Run (+1 to hit units without FLY)
Have to get them below 4 wounds left to see any effect.
They could be combined into a single unit, but this way you could have the main body be a different Doc or Army.
This would be a Mob army sweeper and with that many dice you can wound anything.
Vultures don't have the REGIMENT keyword, so can't be Valhallan.
Was working off Battlescribe, which seems to allow it.
It will allow it because you can have them in the detachment, but they get no benefit from the REGIMENT abilities since they don't have REGIMENT.
Marmatag wrote: Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
Do we know his list? I bet hes running at least 6 carnifex plus a big unit of Hive Gaurd.
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
3x Rippers 3x Rippers 3x Rippers
6 HG, Impaler 6 HG, Impaler 6 HG, Impaler
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Tyrranofex, Rupture, Stinger Salvo
Pretty standard except no Malanthrope is surprising considering it can give -1 to hit to all those big bugs, and not be targeted.
This list essentially wins by not moving and shooting.
I am going to run something similar.
2x Units of Hive Guard 3x Carnifex, with worms + heavy venoms 1x Tyrannofex /w Acid
But i'm also going to bring screening units, venomthropes. I'll also bring genestealers because even though it's sub optimal, they will allow me to deal with things like bike captains, which I face a lot of out here.
It's not rocket science. The only way to play tyranids right now is shooty. What flavor of shooty depends on your meta. Mine is well suited to what i posted above.
Bringing Flying Hive Tyrants is an interesting choice. And this list he made doesn't care about synapse, or IB, all that much. Like i said i'd bring a Malanthrope with that list... and if i'm bringing hive tyrants i'm still putting MRC on them.
Kcalehc wrote: Restrict Stratagems to only those from the Codex of the Warlord (plus the generic ones of course) - that'll might cool the soup a little.
I asked the FLG guys on stream if they think GW will ever change the rules to keep IG from being a CP battery and they were pretty sure that it won't happen. I think i'll ask this one next time though I think they indicated negatively on this as well. I can't remember and the video doesn't seem to be on the channel.
Marmatag wrote: Astra Militarum is a carnival of undercosted nonsense. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest they won a larger tournament, and every imperium list you see is enabled by guard.
Yawn. Kronos had a showing because, like i said, the only way to play Tyranids at the moment is essentially as a gunline. I'll still run genestealers because they're solid, but your primary plan is to outshoot people.
Do we know his list? I bet hes running at least 6 carnifex plus a big unit of Hive Gaurd.
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
Tyrant, 2x Dev w/ worms, wings
3x Rippers
3x Rippers
3x Rippers
6 HG, Impaler
6 HG, Impaler
6 HG, Impaler
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Fex, Mace, Senses, Cysts, 2x Dev w/ worms
Tyrranofex, Rupture, Stinger Salvo
Pretty standard except no Malanthrope is surprising considering it can give -1 to hit to all those big bugs, and not be targeted.
This list essentially wins by not moving and shooting.
I am going to run something similar.
2x Units of Hive Guard
3x Carnifex, with worms + heavy venoms
1x Tyrannofex /w Acid
But i'm also going to bring screening units, venomthropes. I'll also bring genestealers because even though it's sub optimal, they will allow me to deal with things like bike captains, which I face a lot of out here.
It's not rocket science. The only way to play tyranids right now is shooty. What flavor of shooty depends on your meta. Mine is well suited to what i posted above.
Bringing Flying Hive Tyrants is an interesting choice. And this list he made doesn't care about synapse, or IB, all that much. Like i said i'd bring a Malanthrope with that list... and if i'm bringing hive tyrants i'm still putting MRC on them.
malenthrope also provides synapse. FHT is a very weird choice.
