Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:09:32


Post by: Daedalus81


Not that you should give credence to someone's words, because of celebrity, but this person plays more games than all of us by far. I found this particular comment worth noting:

Thus far in the two games I’ve played under the new FAQ rules both have gone all the way to 6 without a clear winner being determined until at least 5. The mentality that everything is going to die within the first couple turns and it’s all about doing as much damage to the other guy as quickly as possible in order to succeed will soon subside. You’ll start to see list choices reflecting that, and the game will naturally slow down (from an action perspective not a time perspective).


https://thebrownmagic.com/2018/04/17/faq-breakdown-part-1/


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:20:43


Post by: Crimson Devil


Well his response is certainly less hysterical than what I've been reading on Dakka. So I imagine he'll be ignored.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:32:48


Post by: Ordana


I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:36:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


The removal of T1 drops and restriction of oft spammed items may yet show a reduced damage output overall - barring IG.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:38:32


Post by: Marmatag


 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


The rule of 3 is most likely having the biggest effect on tournament lists.

If he is still running Eldar, then the deep strike rule won't impact him as greatly.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:38:33


Post by: grouchoben


 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


The previous paragraph is: "The loss of being able to use deep strike to establish board control and gain momentum on turn 1 will really shift armies and what they value. Durable units that can take shooting for a bit while they wait for reinforcements will see more play, and faster units that can effectively redeploy will be more valuable to make up for the momentum loss."

So less spam, faster units being more useful and more durable choices proliferating are the premises for his conclusion. I'm not sure I share his optimism, but I really hope he's right!


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:38:45


Post by: drbored


 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


The Rule of 3. By taking 5+ Onagers or 6+ Flying Hive Tyrants while taking minimal amounts of troops to fill out obligatory taxes, you're filling your army with the most punchy choices you can get. Without those choices, armies can bring less of their biggest and best weapons, and need to pad out their lists with less efficient choices that simply don't do as much damage. Often this may also mean more bodies and models on the table as well, which means more wounds to chew through.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:40:31


Post by: Ordana


The only top army that brought 3+ was Tyranids. I don't see the rule of 3 reducing firepower.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:40:36


Post by: LunarSol


 Crimson Devil wrote:
Well his response is certainly less hysterical than what I've been reading on Dakka. So I imagine he'll be ignored.


It fails to reinforce my personal world view and must therefore be either wrong or only right under circumstances that don't require me to be wrong.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 19:49:06


Post by: rhinoceraids


People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:03:51


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ordana wrote:
The only top army that brought 3+ was Tyranids. I don't see the rule of 3 reducing firepower.


IG Mortars
Plagueburst Crawlers
Dark Talons


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:06:00


Post by: lolman1c


I fought many armies that sat at the back of the feild and outright destroyed my entire army by turn 2 (no joke... every single unit was killed by turn 2). These kind of armies don't care about objectives and will continue to dominate the casual scene. I think the majority of players need to understand that most lists can be beaten by a tournament style list but a cheesy list in a casual game is often unbeatable by fluffy armies.

This is, in my mind, what gw needs to fix. So far, me and my friends have just been getting the short ends of the stick from all these "fixes" by having fluffy lists.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:09:44


Post by: Earth127


Problem is, how do you kwantify that?

Also that sounds a like setup/ mission issue


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:10:23


Post by: Daedalus81


 Earth127 wrote:
Problem is, how do you kwantify that?

Also that sounds a like setup/ mission issue


Missions are crucial to balance, but if you are tabled turn 2 it might not matter. And there's a limit to what they can save there.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:13:40


Post by: tneva82


 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

These beta rules are like decades old idea. Never worked before. Won't work just because it's Games Workshop that decided for it. You might believe in santa clause and magical fairies but I believe in actual empirical data. Which has shown these rules to be bad idea despite so many different variations being attempted. Already tried and failed idea won't become magically working just because Games Workshop decides to join the club of repeated failures.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:14:58


Post by: Xenomancers


 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Deep strike is destroyed and spam and soup are more or less unaffected by the change. Tyrants are the only unit hit hard by the rule of 3. It isn't an over reaction - it is genuine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If games are going to turn 6 they aren't actually fighting.

This is typical of a board that has too much effing terrain.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:17:32


Post by: Daedalus81


tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:20:34


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT

I'll summarize this guys speaks my language.

This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:20:54


Post by: Breng77


NO it really is an overreaction. Deepstrike is not destroyed, it just isn't noob stomper stupid. First turn deepstrike assault is bad in tournament play, other than maybe by flyrants. Reserves will now be more defensive than they are now.

Soup is not effected much Ynnari, assasins, celestine are really the only units that are much effective.

The rule of 3 knocks out PBC spam, Dark Talon Spam, Hive tyrants, hurts Reapers...probably some other stuff as well.

There are other changes that hurt top meta lists
Pox walkers requiring points to go above starting size is a big deal, Tide of traitors getting 1 per game. Eldar getting points increases on many key parts, and Word of the Phoenix going up in WC . Fire Raptors going up in points

There are other changes that people aren't really looking at right now as they lose their minds of OMG deepstrike is dead, and OMG rule of 3 sux.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW Rule of 3 is very good for tournament balance in the long run compared to unrestricted list building.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:23:18


Post by: tneva82


 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:24:27


Post by: Purifying Tempest


 Xenomancers wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Deep strike is destroyed and spam and soup are more or less unaffected by the change. Tyrants are the only unit hit hard by the rule of 3. It isn't an over reaction - it is genuine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If games are going to turn 6 they aren't actually fighting.

This is typical of a board that has too much effing terrain.


Terrain sucks... now there's too much terrain. How much does it cost to take a trip on the over-emotional see-saws you guys ride around here?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:27:28


Post by: mokoshkana


 lolman1c wrote:
I fought many armies that sat at the back of the feild and outright destroyed my entire army by turn 2 (no joke... every single unit was killed by turn 2). These kind of armies don't care about objectives and will continue to dominate the casual scene. I think the majority of players need to understand that most lists can be beaten by a tournament style list but a cheesy list in a casual game is often unbeatable by fluffy armies.

This is, in my mind, what gw needs to fix. So far, me and my friends have just been getting the short ends of the stick from all these "fixes" by having fluffy lists.

Casual games are what you make it. If you play a random person, discuss lists before hand or suffer the consequences. If I bring a bunch of vypers, falcons, wave serpents, etc to a game against a guy running two Shadowswords, and I don't say something before we start, it is definitely my fault. We are playing two different versions of the same game at that point.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:29:37


Post by: Xenomancers


I don't complain about terrain - ever. Just saying if I wanted to play hide and seek I'd play hide and seek. BS ITC house rules encourage this kind of game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:30:42


Post by: Breng77


tneva82 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


Did it ever occur to you that GW doing it allows it to work in ways that random TO doing it never could? Did it also never occur to you that it makes bad armies unable to hide behind one good choice and be seen as ok. If we go off the assumption that organized play will be the source of all testing going forward, it is exceptionally hard to do so if every army is literally "choose single best unit as many times as I can" that lets them fix one unit at a time by jacking up points. Seems like a poor method vs, armies having multiple different units and if certain armies lack enough units that are good, maybe they get a buff. Now maybe that doesn't happen, but this idea that POINTS are all that are needed to balance things makes for a very unbalanced environment and makes balance much more difficult to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't complain about terrain - ever. Just saying if I wanted to play hide and seek I'd play hide and seek. BS ITC house rules encourage this kind of game.


This goes along way to showing why you think gunlines are OP. If you play in a shooting gallery gunlines are always OP.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:33:42


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Marmatag wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


The rule of 3 is most likely having the biggest effect on tournament lists.

If he is still running Eldar, then the deep strike rule won't impact him as greatly.

For the record, Nick Nanavati played Chaos (the famous poxwalker list) at Adepticon so his most recent list was killed completely by the FAQ. It isn't really accurate to say he plays any particular army, he moves to whatever he thinks will put him in the best position to win (nothing wrong with that of course, it's the game he plays).


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:34:29


Post by: ZebioLizard2


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT

I'll summarize this guys speaks my language.

This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.
What was 2++ rerollable assaults, Superfriends, and other such assaults doing in 7th then?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:37:33


Post by: Xenomancers


You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT

I'll summarize this guys speaks my language.

This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.
What was 2++ rerollable assaults, Superfriends, and other such assaults doing in 7th then?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


Did it ever occur to you that GW doing it allows it to work in ways that random TO doing it never could? Did it also never occur to you that it makes bad armies unable to hide behind one good choice and be seen as ok. If we go off the assumption that organized play will be the source of all testing going forward, it is exceptionally hard to do so if every army is literally "choose single best unit as many times as I can" that lets them fix one unit at a time by jacking up points. Seems like a poor method vs, armies having multiple different units and if certain armies lack enough units that are good, maybe they get a buff. Now maybe that doesn't happen, but this idea that POINTS are all that are needed to balance things makes for a very unbalanced environment and makes balance much more difficult to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't complain about terrain - ever. Just saying if I wanted to play hide and seek I'd play hide and seek. BS ITC house rules encourage this kind of game.


This goes along way to showing why you think gunlines are OP. If you play in a shooting gallery gunlines are always OP.

The power between gunline and DS assault style armies was pretty good - they just fcked that up by taking turn 1 DS away. That's why gunlines are now OP.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:45:23


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:47:23


Post by: stormcraft


So let me get this straight xeno: You think gunlines are way op while simultaneously too much terrain is bad and games that go to round 6 are for wussies?
.... Wow


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:49:54


Post by: Marmatag


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
I mostly wonder why he thinks armies will deal less damage then we are seeing now.


The rule of 3 is most likely having the biggest effect on tournament lists.

If he is still running Eldar, then the deep strike rule won't impact him as greatly.

For the record, Nick Nanavati played Chaos (the famous poxwalker list) at Adepticon so his most recent list was killed completely by the FAQ. It isn't really accurate to say he plays any particular army, he moves to whatever he thinks will put him in the best position to win (nothing wrong with that of course, it's the game he plays).

I said "if he is still running Eldar." If he's not, the impact will be different. But bouncing from one piece of absolute cheese to another doesn't necessarily mean he's good at list building. The netlists he played so far are well documented before he started playing them.

Anyway. I wouldn't treat him as an authority on this specific case.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:49:59


Post by: Bharring


If you wanted to play hide and seek, you'd play hide and seek, but if you want to go bowling, you play 40k?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:50:47


Post by: Xenomancers


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.

BS - anyone who designs an army from scratch just play at every new event does not want balance. They feed on unbalance. These FAQ rules are effing bad. To defend them just means he know he will have an easier time winning games now. BTW what is his record in ITC this cycle? Doesn't he win something like 95% of his games?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:52:59


Post by: Arachnofiend


I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:54:36


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
If you wanted to play hide and seek, you'd play hide and seek, but if you want to go bowling, you play 40k?

If you know the battlefeild ahead of time and make houserules on how they are going to play all you do is change what combinations are going to be most powerful. This isn't how 40k is played normally. Normally the battlefield is random - the deployment is random - even the objectives can be random. You know how fcked shooting armies are when the opponent can hide their entire army? You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:55:34


Post by: Grimgold


Read the article, it's nice to see someone taking a more measured approach to evaluating the FAQ. With that said I think he is a little too optimistic on games getting longer, in very competitive venues game length is tightly constrained and I doubt that will change because alpha strike has been blunted.

I suppose he meant that games would be competitive for longer, and I think I can get behind the point. Alpha strikes are meant to snowball you, Drop in kill a quarter of your opponents army, and then he only has 1500 points left to hit you back with. Next turn you lengthen out your lead by killing more, and he can kill even less in return. Your opponent never catches up, and while the game might go on for a few more turns, it was won in a single phase.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:57:04


Post by: Xenomancers


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Saying your a better 40k player than somebody is kind of like saying they are better at tick tack toe or checkers.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:58:01


Post by: AnFéasógMór


Like 90% of this boils down to "tournament players might suddenly start playing lists more like everyone else does, and never be aware of the fact that everyone else had to accept a sudden imbalance because of their poor behavior."

Like, yeah, you're gonna see less spam lists and less deep strike abuse and all that. IN TOURNAMENTS. The average player already doesn't do that gak, and instead is just going to have to deal with the fact that CC Deep Strike units got nerfed in comparison to DS shooting units for zero reason, while wondering who the crap was spamming the same unit over and over again anyway.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 20:58:32


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Saying your a better 40k player than somebody is kind of like saying they are better at tick tack toe or checkers.

If you think 40k is as simple as fething tic tac toe, then you really shouldn't be wasting your time on it, Xeno. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be having fun if I felt the game was as brain dead as something that can be solved by a small child.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:00:19


Post by: Daedalus81


tneva82 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.


WAT


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


If you don't understand the difference between the old rules and these...especially within a new edition I don't really know where to start.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:05:57


Post by: LunarSol


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.


The cheating, rule lawyering, gotcha crowd tends to thrive in the mid tables where they can exploit beginners but don't have tricks that work against players that really know the game. Generally competitive players that actually win events just don't want to have to pull their punches. They want to be challenged at least as much as they want to win. It can be really satisfying to do your best and lose, but getting beat is less thrilling if you're not giving it your all when you come up short.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:06:07


Post by: Marmatag


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


Sure, there's no maybe about it, he is definitely a better player than me - that doesn't matter, though.

It's way too early to have a definitive statement about how the game will play. If he was gaming around the clock since the release, that's still not that many games in... I recall the Frontline beta testers talking about how strong Blood Angels would be when 8th launched.

I doubt his statement, and I think i have a few good reasons:

1. It's still business as usual after turn 1 ends. If deep-strike was really breaking the game and speeding it up artificially, all we've bought is one turn where there's movement and long range shooting.

2. Deep strike denial was already a thing... going second in some games you were basically DSing within movement distance of your own zone anyway.

3. Outside of a few problematic spam lists, most people have 50% on the board points wise.

For these reasons i don't feel the deep strike change is going to really produce longer games.

So for me it boils down to the impact of the rule of three. And there simply hasn't been enough playtesting to make a conclusion one way or the other. You can still comfortably field 30 dark reapers, for instance, and Guide is still just as good.

A gunline army is still 2000 points worth of full on shooting turn 1, and they don't need to worry as much about screening.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:09:22


Post by: AnFéasógMór


 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.


That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:12:55


Post by: Marmatag


AnFéasógMór wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.


That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.


If the wall is classified as impassable, yes.

<Infantry> can move over and through walls.

And if the model is up against the wall, and you can end your charge move within 1" on the other side of the wall, you don't need to go around, either.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:14:09


Post by: Bonachinonin


I think the DS is ruined argument is a little dramatic. You just have to wait... until turn 2. I mean, I enjoyed having to fend off 80 blood letters or tzaangors on turn 1. It was especially great when I went second so, even if I fought off the initial alpha strike, I was boxed into my deployment from the get go. I'd still lose as the other guy had some nurglings or cultists scoring objectives for the first 3-4 turns. And before someone says, where are my screens, people who run such alpha strike melee lists have ways to get passed screens.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:14:51


Post by: mokoshkana


AnFéasógMór wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.


That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.


Ruins (pg 248)
Infantry are assume to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:14:58


Post by: Xenomancers


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?

Saying your a better 40k player than somebody is kind of like saying they are better at tick tack toe or checkers.

If you think 40k is as simple as fething tic tac toe, then you really shouldn't be wasting your time on it, Xeno. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be having fun if I felt the game was as brain dead as something that can be solved by a small child.
If I wanted to play an in depth strategy game I would have chosen another game. Games like that actually exist. 40k is about list building and rolling dice. There are no fancy maneuvers. You can shoot someone with your main gun out of the tip of your wheel well. Units can move and charge from deployment zone to deployment zone. These are all facts that people who play this game just understand. Decisions are made for you pre game if you have even the tiniest amount of experience about what your units are capable of doing. You should even have a pretty good idea of exactly what your opponent is going to do also.

Use your brain dude. He is a win at all cost player. Plays a specifically tailored list for every event he goes to. This is they guy you want to take balance advice from? I don't think he'd be able to keep that 95% win rate if he actually had to play a balanced game. So ofc he doesn't want one.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:20:09


Post by: Bharring


Only if the 'wall' is a 'ruins'. Comes down to terrain, which 8th Ed barely defines.

Usually it comes down to definitions of the table. For a tourny, should be provided with the table. Outside a tourny, should be discussed.

Solid walls I've seen more frequently called impassible than ruins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WAAC means more than Wins at any cost within the rules.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:25:23


Post by: godardc


Yeah, 40k is fundamentally a beer and bretzel game, and always has been. You can't really make it "balanced and competitive", there are tons of others games however which are.
I would never have taken this kind of people to balance my game if I were GW, but casual players, because it is a casual game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:26:41


Post by: Grimgold


That's a really odd stance to take Xeno, he is a LVO winner because he knows the rules, knows the meta (eg: how people play), and is creative enough to use that knowledge to craft winning lists. Those attributes would seem to make him a pretty ideal person to take balance advice from.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:28:12


Post by: Spartacus


With so much now dependant on it, I think its necessary for GW to explain in detail and with images exactly how much terrain should be used on your average board.

Their current guidelines are very vague, and the only images they include are 'showcase' style battle scenes with all the terrain neatly arranged around the outside as not to obscure the models. No wonder there are massively varying thoughts and ideas within the community about what a game table should look like.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:31:09


Post by: Bharring


I played WarmaHordes first (due to a d&d campaign on the SRD-based campaign setting), and enjoyed that game. 40k won be me over hard because it was more casual, kitbash/rule of cool friendly.

I've always seen other TT games as better for competitive events. I don't see any actual value in using the tabletop version in a game of skill outside estimations and manual dexterity. Anything the rulesset can do deterministically, silicon can run better than greymatter.

So it being a beer & pretzels game is a *good* thing.

However, I had to move away from Mechdar because, in late 6E, you couldn't play it without chedder. Even 10 DAs and a Farseer or two in a Serpent were just DAVU - the Serpent outperformed the contents. And Falcons were not only limited to 3, but could only carry 6 guys - so can't do mechdar.

That anecdote is to push the idea that balance is important even for casual gameplay. And, as such, I'd much rather have more balanced rules. But there is a limit. How do you let people model anything and still use True Line Of Site? So do wings hurt you? Bigger bases help you?

There's a tradeoff, and more balance is better. But if you're lookign for a true test of skills, this isn't the right game. May not even be the right genre.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:33:15


Post by: Nevermind


Man, if you guys hate this so much, stop playing. You whine about every change. Play it out, see how it goes, write GW a concise reason why it should be changed or your opinion and move on. Raging on a board is doing nothing.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:38:00


Post by: Primark G


 Arachnofiend wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You mean he plays the most busted list possible. Is a WAAC player (thats fine - it's a tournament) why does that make his opinion about balance at all useful? Doesn't it benefit him more for the game to be less balanced? So he can have an even greater advantage at his next event?

I don't pretend to speak for Nick, but generally the real top competitors in a competitive game (not the chump at your local store who steals their lists) want the game to be as balanced as possible because the more balanced things are the more player skill and real accomplishment has to do with a victory. I mean, just look at his blog post: his #1 dark reaper list and #2 poxwalker list were both hit hard by the FAQ. If all he cared about was breezing through the ranks by paying for the most OP combos then he'd certainly be a lot less excited about the new rules.


This is untrue as he always brings armies that are broken and very fringe... he could not make his way out of a wet paper bag with a balanced tactical army. A lot of the big changes are because of people like him.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:38:46


Post by: An Actual Englishman


This is a review of the FAQ that we needed, here of all places. Intelligent, measured and considered. He does a great job of looking at the whole rather than focusing on how a singular army/unit/strategy is going to be better/worse off.

His expectations of the meta shift are realistic and intelligent.

His expectations of the change in value of units based on the FAQ is well thought out and presented.

Great article from an intelligent player. I followed his facebook group off the back of this. Awesome.

The ethos of this article should be followed by everyone - don't whine, cry or argue; adapt and evolve instead. Become the better player because the meta is wide open now.

I gotta be honest I love these changes GW is pushing out. It feels like we're getting a new game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:41:02


Post by: Asmodios


wow an amazing player who has a cool rational response to the FAQ........... and just like I thought I would see he's getting bashed in the comments lol


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:42:15


Post by: rhinoceraids


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a review of the FAQ that we needed, here of all places. Intelligent, measured and considered. He does a great job of looking at the whole rather than focusing on how a singular army/unit/strategy is going to be better/worse off.

His expectations of the meta shift are realistic and intelligent.

His expectations of the change in value of units based on the FAQ is well thought out and presented.

Great article from an intelligent player. I followed his facebook group off the back of this. Awesome.

The ethos of this article should be followed by everyone - don't whine, cry or argue; adapt and evolve instead. Become the better player because the meta is wide open now.

I gotta be honest I love these changes GW is pushing out. It feels like we're getting a new game.


This is a well thought out. Reasonable. And intelligent response.

Clearly you aren't from around here....


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:44:05


Post by: Bonachinonin


I agree Englishman. Its strange, people say Nick can't win with a balanced tactical army. But isn't part of the tactics in this game to build an army list that will win? His record shows he clearly knows how to play. He only brings broken lists? He isn't the only one and he still manages to come out on top time after time. Seems inconsiderate to deny his successes.

Of course these faq changes are meant to pull in these extreme lists that competitive players typically field. The nature of being competitive is to bring the best chance of success. Overall these changes are beneficial. Lists will need to change and I sympathize with those who are having a hard time.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:54:58


Post by: meleti


 Bonachinonin wrote:
I agree Englishman. Its strange, people say Nick can't win with a balanced tactical army. But isn't part of the tactics in this game to build an army list that will win? His record shows he clearly knows how to play. He only brings broken lists? He isn't the only one and he still manages to come out on top time after time. Seems inconsiderate to deny his successes.

Of course these faq changes are meant to pull in these extreme lists that competitive players typically field. The nature of being competitive is to bring the best chance of success. Overall these changes are beneficial. Lists will need to change and I sympathize with those who are having a hard time.

It's more than that, the recent army he took to Adepticon is a great example of a highly tactical army. It was a horde of cultists and poxwalkers, which meant that the entire army functioned on assault tricks - using charges to rapidly advance his units, control the board, and constrict his opponents.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:56:26


Post by: An Actual Englishman


 rhinoceraids wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a review of the FAQ that we needed, here of all places. Intelligent, measured and considered. He does a great job of looking at the whole rather than focusing on how a singular army/unit/strategy is going to be better/worse off.

His expectations of the meta shift are realistic and intelligent.

His expectations of the change in value of units based on the FAQ is well thought out and presented.

Great article from an intelligent player. I followed his facebook group off the back of this. Awesome.

The ethos of this article should be followed by everyone - don't whine, cry or argue; adapt and evolve instead. Become the better player because the meta is wide open now.

I gotta be honest I love these changes GW is pushing out. It feels like we're getting a new game.


This is a well thought out. Reasonable. And intelligent response.

Clearly you aren't from around here....


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
 Bonachinonin wrote:
I agree Englishman. Its strange, people say Nick can't win with a balanced tactical army. But isn't part of the tactics in this game to build an army list that will win? His record shows he clearly knows how to play. He only brings broken lists? He isn't the only one and he still manages to come out on top time after time. Seems inconsiderate to deny his successes.

Of course these faq changes are meant to pull in these extreme lists that competitive players typically field. The nature of being competitive is to bring the best chance of success. Overall these changes are beneficial. Lists will need to change and I sympathize with those who are having a hard time.

It's so much better. The fact that he's excited kinda proves to me he's a good player. He doesn't want to win with a weird skew list, he wants to win with a well balanced list where actual tactical decisions on the fly matter.

I think this FAQ will help separate the 'men from the boys' in terms of who can build a list and who can actually USE a list.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:58:19


Post by: Cmdr_Sune


Why does people throw around the expression WAAC player? Nick is not a WAAC player, he's a highly competetive tournament player.

He also dedicates a blog at helping other people get better at 40k.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 21:59:13


Post by: meleti


 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
Why does people throw around the expression WAAC player? Nick is not a WAAC player, he's a highly competetive tournament player.

He also dedicates a blog at helping other people get better at 40k.

Anyone who wins more than you at a tournament is a WAAC player, anyone who loses more is a casual scrub.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 22:06:39


Post by: Ordana


 Cmdr_Sune wrote:
Why does people throw around the expression WAAC player? Nick is not a WAAC player, he's a highly competetive tournament player.

He also dedicates a blog at helping other people get better at 40k.
Because to some people a tournament player is by definition a WAAC player because in their mind no one else plays in tournaments.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 22:32:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 Nevermind wrote:
Man, if you guys hate this so much, stop playing. You whine about every change. Play it out, see how it goes, write GW a concise reason why it should be changed or your opinion and move on. Raging on a board is doing nothing.


There is a place for complaints. It keeps us in check. It's the method of complaint that really leaves much to be desired.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 22:32:49


Post by: Crimson


It is not that he is wrong, but his perspective is just completely different than that of most casual or semi-casual players. Hardcore tournament players are perfectly fine with switching an army like they change socks, and are used to writing off huge swathes of units or even entire armies. They only care about what are the top builds of top armies, and I'm sure any change in that will be interesting to them. But they're completely unconcerned about these changes hurting things they had already written off like Reivers or Grey Knights.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 22:46:20


Post by: Galas


Classic dakkadakka's airmchair hyperbolist TOP level players response.

"This guys disagree with me so it doesn't matter that he has put a reasonable argument and, at least, has some credence to his words even if that doesn't make him authomatically correct! He is just wrong! WE MUST IGNORE HIM!"

Don't change guys.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 22:50:52


Post by: Primark G


He is a WAAC player that brough reaperspam to LVO and poxspam to Adepticon. It constantly amazes me how foolish people are and easy to get over on when you blow pretty smoke.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 22:54:51


Post by: Breng77


Yes he brought strong lists like everyone else trying to win the event. He is still beating other guys with those types of lists. He is an excelent player, but like many on Dakka you want to believe that if you brought those lists you would do as well, or that if he brought a similar list to you, that you would win so skill is a no -existent factor in his success.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:06:08


Post by: Irbis


 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:08:20


Post by: Primark G


Breng77 wrote:
Yes he brought strong lists like everyone else trying to win the event. He is still beating other guys with those types of lists. He is an excelent player, but like many on Dakka you want to believe that if you brought those lists you would do as well, or that if he brought a similar list to you, that you would win so skill is a no -existent factor in his success.


It is because of people like him there is the BIG FAQ - don't be duped into deifying because he can blow some smoke.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:14:17


Post by: Breng77


Right it isn’t because the game allows these things to happen, blame the player. But sure keep believing it’s those dirty top end tournament players that are the problem and without them there would be no problem with the game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:23:14


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:29:40


Post by: AnFéasógMór


 Irbis wrote:

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.


I mean, yeah, definitely your imagination. CD were a top tier list because of Psyker insanity, but Orks and Tyranids were tier lists through the entirety of 7th, and CSM were mid-tier at best in general, with almost every majorly successful CSM list being Tzeench, not Khorne.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:30:42


Post by: Primark G


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:32:53


Post by: AnFéasógMór


That's like saying "didn't Manos - Hands of Fate win an Oscar for best picture? Must just be my imagination!"

Like, yeah, obviously it is


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:34:44


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Primark G wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/17 23:38:01


Post by: Primark G


I won many tournaments with Deamonkin you don't know what your'e talking about.

"I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ."

QFT


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 00:00:26


Post by: kronk


AnFéasógMór wrote:
That's like saying "didn't Manos - Hands of Fate win an Oscar for best picture? Must just be my imagination!"

Like, yeah, obviously it is


Hahahahha!!!

Exalted. Then made a dummy account to exalt again.


Well done sir


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 00:05:12


Post by: Daedalus81


Damn guys...

What have I done?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 00:28:33


Post by: Arachnofiend


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

Better than the super casual players trying to drag his character through the mud because they disagree with what he said.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 00:28:40


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.



Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 01:01:30


Post by: fe40k


 Marmatag wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


Sure, there's no maybe about it, he is definitely a better player than me - that doesn't matter, though.

It's way too early to have a definitive statement about how the game will play. If he was gaming around the clock since the release, that's still not that many games in... I recall the Frontline beta testers talking about how strong Blood Angels would be when 8th launched.

I doubt his statement, and I think i have a few good reasons:

1. It's still business as usual after turn 1 ends. If deep-strike was really breaking the game and speeding it up artificially, all we've bought is one turn where there's movement and long range shooting.

2. Deep strike denial was already a thing... going second in some games you were basically DSing within movement distance of your own zone anyway.

3. Outside of a few problematic spam lists, most people have 50% on the board points wise.

For these reasons i don't feel the deep strike change is going to really produce longer games.

So for me it boils down to the impact of the rule of three. And there simply hasn't been enough playtesting to make a conclusion one way or the other. You can still comfortably field 30 dark reapers, for instance, and Guide is still just as good.

A gunline army is still 2000 points worth of full on shooting turn 1, and they don't need to worry as much about screening.


1.1) Some armies can't gunline; and even if they can - there's no more army building viability. A 2000 point Gunline versus a 1000/1000 split of Gunline/DeepStrike Melee - the 2000 points can bring all of its weapons to bear, round 1, while the other army needs to wait an entire turn. Previously, both armies could engage with all their forces on the first round; going 1st was always a problem (still was), but now it's even more pronounced, and entirely favors shooting armies. -- To make it fair, zero shooting should be performed on the first combat round; it should be used to jockey for position only.
1.2) Screens now have an additional round to get into position - which means deep strikers need to chew through that much more board space before they can assault something they actually care about. This will, on average, delay them an additional turn (5" move + 3" advance movement from the screening units); meaning... round1= can't do anything, round2=fighting the screen, round3= moving into position, round4=finally able to fight the things they care about. 1/2/3 additional rounds where they need to endure ranged weaponry, while they try to close the gap.

Meanwhile, shooting suffers zero penalties, both in round1, and in the rest of the game.

Let me quote from the link posted by the threads creator:
-You can’t move after deep striking- This is so unbelievably huge. Gone are the days of deep striking 30 tzangors and casting warp time on them to charge an army turn 1. Deep strike quicken spears are a soon to be distant memory. Competitive 40k as we know it is going to change fundamentally.

Prior to this FAQ most 40k games tend to be played within the first few turns (1-3), which led many games to being total blow outs and left one player feeling a bit left out.

Meanwhile, blowouts will STILL happen turn one; but they'll only be for the advantage of the shooting armies. Melee armies can no longer complete, and no longer have an opportunity to "blow out" their opponent.

Go ranged, or go home.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 01:02:44


Post by: meleti


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

Better than the super casual players trying to drag his character through the mud because they disagree with what he said.

Or because (gasp) he played a competitive list at LVO of all places.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 01:11:08


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.



Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 01:16:02


Post by: Primark G


Line of sight blocking terrain get some.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 01:32:47


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.



Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.


Ummm...it absolutely makes a difference how many you can take when considering how broken something is. Dealing with 3 flyrants (which went up in points), or 3 PBC is significantly easier than 7 or 9. Neither is particularly problematic in the 0-3 limit. Are they still likely best in spot choices sure, but that is an issue of internal balance, more than one of interfaction balance. Do you really think 3 Flyrants is OP and something most builds cannot fight against? I feel like you are confusing powerful units and OP units.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 01:50:50


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.



Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.


Ummm...it absolutely makes a difference how many you can take when considering how broken something is. Dealing with 3 flyrants (which went up in points), or 3 PBC is significantly easier than 7 or 9. Neither is particularly problematic in the 0-3 limit. Are they still likely best in spot choices sure, but that is an issue of internal balance, more than one of interfaction balance. Do you really think 3 Flyrants is OP and something most builds cannot fight against? I feel like you are confusing powerful units and OP units.

I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 02:04:33


Post by: Byte


 Primark G wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Yes he brought strong lists like everyone else trying to win the event. He is still beating other guys with those types of lists. He is an excelent player, but like many on Dakka you want to believe that if you brought those lists you would do as well, or that if he brought a similar list to you, that you would win so skill is a no -existent factor in his success.


It is because of people like him there is the BIG FAQ


Agreed, I'm not digging how a minority of players are driving the direction of an entire game system. Particularly when events like NOVA claim to be bro-hammer events.

However, this is the current state of 40k. Whack-a-mole solutions. Chase around a few players with a note pad.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 02:17:20


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


AnFéasógMór wrote:
That's like saying "didn't Manos - Hands of Fate win an Oscar for best picture? Must just be my imagination!"

Like, yeah, obviously it is


Don't let the Master hear you say that, or he will get Torgo to slowly shamble toward you and sacrifice you.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 02:24:09


Post by: Primark G


A slow and painful sacrifice.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 05:59:16


Post by: Spoletta


I do actually agree with his analysis. After all that guy has more games under his belt than all the posters in this thread combined, he knows his stuff.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 06:57:01


Post by: hollow one


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 07:00:41


Post by: tneva82


 hollow one wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.


So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 07:01:02


Post by: wuestenfux


The mentality that everything is going to die within the first couple turns and it’s all about doing as much damage to the other guy as quickly as possible in order to succeed will soon subside.

This is a very important comment.
We will see smoother games now and this is how a tabletop should be.
The game should develop. The enemy forces approach slowly until they get in touch.
Its more like the normal 30k games I've played so far.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 07:19:23


Post by: Sim-Life


tneva82 wrote:
 hollow one wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.


So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.


Some units aren't broken UNTIL you spam them though. One or two flyrants aren't a big deal because a handful of lascannons and plasma guns will wreck them. Seven is a different story.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 07:19:57


Post by: tneva82


That's because effect of brokeness is more easily visible. But still core issue is with too good effect for the cost. Fix the core issue, fix the spam issue. Limiting is just GW style of putting head in sand they used to do with special characters. "This super awesome model is undercosted but it's allright because it's max 1 in the army!"


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 07:25:52


Post by: wuestenfux


Some units aren't broken UNTIL you spam them though. One or two flyrants aren't a big deal because a handful of lascannons and plasma guns will wreck them. Seven is a different story.

This can be formulated more precisely by the Lanchester square law (WW II).


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 07:28:48


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 hollow one wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

Under that logic, Special Characters could go significantly down in price and it would be okay, as there is already a limit on them in the first place.

Imagine Roboute at 300 points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:
That's because effect of brokeness is more easily visible. But still core issue is with too good effect for the cost. Fix the core issue, fix the spam issue. Limiting is just GW style of putting head in sand they used to do with special characters. "This super awesome model is undercosted but it's allright because it's max 1 in the army!"

He made the correct response. I just used Roboute as the example to illustrate the point.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 08:11:56


Post by: Spoletta


This is a game based on counters, so spam itself of any unit is in itself a problem and they correctly addressed that. There is a quality in quanitity, simply because a TAC list will have part of it's list in target saturation and part useless.

Add to this that without this change, any unbalanced model would break the game. Now unbalanced models can go unanswered for a while without a major impact. Sure, they will have to be fixed in the next CA, but at least you are not ruining the game for everyone.

Saying that this change does nothing to prevent unbalance, is like saying that bandaging a wound is useless because the wound is still there.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 08:40:55


Post by: Malachon


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect here. Sure he is a better player, and he will probably understand the fundamentals of the game a lot better, but that doesn't make him automatically a person who is invested in making the game better rather than improving his chances of winning. I don't know the guy, so I would not presume to make any assumptions either way in this regard, but there are two separate things here.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 08:57:28


Post by: wuestenfux


Malachon wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect here. Sure he is a better player, and he will probably understand the fundamentals of the game a lot better, but that doesn't make him automatically a person who is invested in making the game better rather than improving his chances of winning. I don't know the guy, so I would not presume to make any assumptions either way in this regard, but there are two separate things here.

I have great respect from this guy.
Some time ago (ages?) I also played in the top bracket. The guys (ladies?) there may sound arrogant but they usually arent.
So I'd trust this guy.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 09:32:46


Post by: Alcibiades


 mokoshkana wrote:
AnFéasógMór wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
You can actually charge through brick walls in this game - but you can't shoot through them.


That's not exactly true, though. You can target a unit behind a brick wall for a charge. You still have to move around the wall, though.


Ruins (pg 248)
Infantry are assume to be able to scale walls and traverse through windows, doors and portals readily. These models can therefore move through the floors and walls of a ruin without further impediment.


And therefore the assumption is that there are windows, doors, and portals. They are not moving through "brick walls."

If you want a brick wall, all you have to do is declare that this here wall is impassable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 wuestenfux wrote:
The mentality that everything is going to die within the first couple turns and it’s all about doing as much damage to the other guy as quickly as possible in order to succeed will soon subside.

This is a very important comment.
We will see smoother games now and this is how a tabletop should be.
The game should develop. The enemy forces approach slowly until they get in touch.
Its more like the normal 30k games I've played so far.


Yeah. The whole front-loading of damage completely warps the game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 10:11:39


Post by: hollow one


tneva82 wrote:
 hollow one wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.


So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally mis-characterising my arguments or not. I'm obviously not saying have poor balance is preferred, but instead saying that limiting the amount of units you can bring adds flexibility in unit design because it limits the impact of efficient units. It's not an excuse for too good a unit, and clearly you can see examples of that being dealt with in a different manner (bobby g price increase, even though he is already limited to one unit). These rules work in tandem, and working together they add greater freedom to a design team.

So overall, its clear to me that limiting to 3 of the same unit affords some freedom in printing efficient dataslates without the worry of a spam list appearing and destroying the meta. It is an effective crutch that you can do interesting things with! For example, some units can circumvent the limitation by having grouped units (leman russ for eg) or some units might have a special rule allowing them to be spammed, but are intentionally inefficient. You add flexibility when you limit potentially broken units across the board. I think the rule is extremely useful and a massive improvement to the game, especially from a design perspective. Additionally, as other's have said, 3 flyrants at their original price may simply not be broken, but 7 or 9 almost certainly is. Your assumption that a higher number simply reveals the broken-ness to a greater degree is just an assumption.

You're then following up with the classic "by the faulty logic I just gave you, then x and y are also stupid!". So I'm not going to address the rest.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 10:32:45


Post by: Breng77


tneva82 wrote:
 hollow one wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.


So having unbalanced unit is good?

Why not simply make unit not so brokenly good that people spam...

But yeah rather than have balanced units let's have broken ones! It's allright. You can only have max 3 of them!

On that logic it's okay to have model that is worth 2000 pts for 500 pts because you can have max 1 of them.

Limitation of number IS NOT an excuse for too good unit. That is the idiotic special character discount GW loved to field. If unit A is worth X points then unit B that's identical in ability must also cost X points even if you can take unit B max 1.


Of course it is an excuse for “too” good units, because “spam” changes the value of a unit. That doesn’t mean that the points on all units are 100% correct, but it does mean the points at which they are correct are different. The value of a flyrant in a 7 flyrant list is significantly different than one in a list with 1 or even 3. Because in the 7 flyrant list killing 1 or 2 is no big loss because 5 of 6 still beat your face. If you only have 3 and so kill 2 the one remaining tyrant is not on the same level as 5 would be as far as difficulty to deal with. The same is true with Special characters to an extent, they may or may not be properly costed, but if you could spam them they would be a larger issue and as such their points in order to be fixed would need to be much higher. Let’s put it this way they raised the flyrant point cost I think people would still take 7 if they could, but when limited to 3 I think there is more of a question because there is less certainty of them getting a return on that investment. In order to fix 7 with points I think you make 1 or 2 unplayable. That is why limits work units can still be good, but they are not broken because other players can handle them. Once you get to that state it is time to look at units that never see play and buff those to be usable. That said I doubt we will ever see a time with perfect internal balance. What I hope for is for multiple lists and units to be viable in each book and I think limits present the best road to that list end.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 10:33:18


Post by: Dionysodorus


tneva82 wrote:

So having unbalanced unit is good?

Sure, it can be. That's an important part of creating an identity for a faction, actually. Especially for factions that don't by design just lack some capability entirely, you distinguish them by making them better at certain things. A commitment to complete balance between units across factions is a recipe for all factions fielding similar lists and pursuing similar strategies. It's actually really common in game design for a factions to be deliberately given overpowered but restricted choices that help define them. Magic does this a lot -- there are frequently cards that are basically auto-includes in decks of the appropriate color(s), because the designers want those colors to do what those cards do very, very well. Warcraft 3 gave you your first hero for free because they're so important for distinguishing the factions. In some sense the internal balance here was awful, because you'd always build a hero early on, but encouraging that was actually the point. It seems pretty plausible to me that GW intends for most Tyranid armies to field a couple of Hive Tyrants. Certainly that seems like the intention for Tau Commanders.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 10:38:22


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 hollow one wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?
Yes, if they could only field three of them, that would be okay.

Much like in MtG, only being able to bring 4 of a card is a form of balance, since they can print powerful things and know that players are limited in their application. It actually allows for flexibility in design, as you don't have to worry about evenly matching the points efficiency of all units.

Under that logic, Special Characters could go significantly down in price and it would be okay, as there is already a limit on them in the first place.

Imagine Roboute at 300 points!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:
That's because effect of brokeness is more easily visible. But still core issue is with too good effect for the cost. Fix the core issue, fix the spam issue. Limiting is just GW style of putting head in sand they used to do with special characters. "This super awesome model is undercosted but it's allright because it's max 1 in the army!"

He made the correct response. I just used Roboute as the example to illustrate the point.


Imagine Rouboit at 400 points if you could take 2 or 3 of him. It isn’t that there is not a balance point for limited models, it is that the balance point for those models is not the same as if you can spam them because their effect on the game is different. Take Celestine at 200 points she might be slightly indercosted, if you could take 5 of her she would be wildly undercosted because it is harder to deal with her, you would be getting 5 free acts of faith, 5 respawnign models. The point you guys ar missing is that it isn’t a question of whether these models still need a points fix (we don’t know yet how they perform as limited models) it’s that the point fix is different depending on how many you can take.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 11:13:31


Post by: SeanDrake


I would bet money that before even writing that bollocks he had all ready come up with his next list that bends,breaks or circumvents the rules.

I reckon he is all ready playing mind games with his opponents and the FAQ will have little effect on game length and time to kill.

Chances are he has the next big spam/shooting alpha strike or other skew list ready to go.

Basicly he is the ultimate TFG He just is polite about it


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 11:32:43


Post by: hollow one


SeanDrake wrote:
I would bet money that before even writing that bollocks he had all ready come up with his next list that bends,breaks or circumvents the rules.

I reckon he is all ready playing mind games with his opponents and the FAQ will have little effect on game length and time to kill.

Chances are he has the next big spam/shooting alpha strike or other skew list ready to go.

Basicly he is the ultimate TFG He just is polite about it
He may well find the next broken list. But that does not invalidate his points. In fact, personally, I find that it makes his points much more valid since he is the one that clearly understands the state of the game in a more thorough sense.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 11:55:42


Post by: tedurur


Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This FAQ sucks and is trying to turn the game back into 7th edition where assault was not viable and deep strike was a fools errand.

Assault not viable? Funny, I seem to recall CD were in top 5, Khorne CSM and Tyranid lists, as well as Green tide. Gee, must have been my imagination.

Deep strike was a fools errand? Again, what was Gladius running all pods, CD again, Eldar/DE webway drops, or Tau? Gee, must have imagined that too.

Then there was Skyhammer, combining both of the above. Man, that must have been one not-viable, fool of a formation. Oh wait

Was 7th edition a decade ago seeing how poorly some people tend to recall how it looked like and the rules used back then? Or are they just being wrong on purpose?

Where would that assault unit be without a fething 2++ reroll? or invisibility? Please don't be silly.

Yup, these Khorne/Ork psyker powers and inv saves sure were scary! Oh, wait...

Khorne wasn't good and neither were Orks in 7th. Also Skyhammer was vastly overrated if you paid any attention, and NOBODY was using Pods with their Gladius.


Deamonkin was off the chain in 7th edition.... totally off the chain.

They were a garbage army with at minimum a neat gimmick (Blood tithe chart? That was actually a great idea) and one good formation (two if you liked Termicide as much as I did).

I also like the super casual people here now looking to a tournament player to justify them liking this terrible FAQ.

It won't fix anything. Mark my words.



Looks at Flyrant spam, PBCS spam, Pox farm..:.yeah it totally fixes nothing: I won’t pretend the FAQ is going to create some utopia of 40k but I didn’t expect it to. I expected it to address some of the more abusive parts of the game and it did. How well it did remains to be seen.

It doesn't stop the former two units from being problematic though. A unit that's too cheap is a unit that's broken regardless of how many you can take.

So no, it fixes nothing.


Ummm...it absolutely makes a difference how many you can take when considering how broken something is. Dealing with 3 flyrants (which went up in points), or 3 PBC is significantly easier than 7 or 9. Neither is particularly problematic in the 0-3 limit. Are they still likely best in spot choices sure, but that is an issue of internal balance, more than one of interfaction balance. Do you really think 3 Flyrants is OP and something most builds cannot fight against? I feel like you are confusing powerful units and OP units.

I don't want to go hyperbolic and exaggerate, but lemme do what I can to really illustrate the point.

Let's say Flyrants went down by maybe 20 points but the 0-3 limit was in place. Would that make it okay, just because you don't have to supposedly deal with more of them? Or would you rather that someone admit the internal balance problem is the real issue here?


Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:06:02


Post by: tneva82


tedurur wrote:
Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).


It's putting head in the sand and pretending there's no issue. Flytyrant too cheap? Add the price rather than limitation. Limitation btw that isn't even for flytyrant but GAME WIDE. Which results in other than flytyrants being affected. Which, as btw real life experience has shown before since these kind of game wide limitations have been repeatedly tried in past 20 years, will result in further imbalance where strong armies shrug it off while other armies go from about playable to junk and weak armies go even weaker.

Many many many(including GW) has tried these sort of blanket restrictions in past 20 years(can't verify have they been tried before since I didn't play GW games before). Every time it has created more problems in balance than it solved. This attempt isn't even particularly creative or good one. There's been much better attempts before. Yet they failed. Not once it was actually succesfull.

If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the problem rather than just apply blanket wide restrictions. Those provenly leads to more balance problems. If this was first time somebody would try sure give it a shot. But this is super old repeatedly tried concept. Why anybody is still naive enough it might work this time without actually changing anything about it...


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:07:28


Post by: gungo


Its kinda cool the no deepstrike outside deployment turn 1 might actually make the game play faster and not take 1.5 hours turn 1s anymore.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:12:17


Post by: Sim-Life


I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:15:49


Post by: Breng77


tneva82 wrote:
tedurur wrote:
Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).


It's putting head in the sand and pretending there's no issue. Flytyrant too cheap? Add the price rather than limitation. Limitation btw that isn't even for flytyrant but GAME WIDE. Which results in other than flytyrants being affected. Which, as btw real life experience has shown before since these kind of game wide limitations have been repeatedly tried in past 20 years, will result in further imbalance where strong armies shrug it off while other armies go from about playable to junk and weak armies go even weaker.

Many many many(including GW) has tried these sort of blanket restrictions in past 20 years(can't verify have they been tried before since I didn't play GW games before). Every time it has created more problems in balance than it solved. This attempt isn't even particularly creative or good one. There's been much better attempts before. Yet they failed. Not once it was actually succesfull.

If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the problem rather than just apply blanket wide restrictions. Those provenly leads to more balance problems. If this was first time somebody would try sure give it a shot. But this is super old repeatedly tried concept. Why anybody is still naive enough it might work this time without actually changing anything about it...


It still works better than points only balancing, which few games do and it always leads to spam the best thing. Say this with me now there does not exist a points cost where 1 or something is good at which spamming that thing is bad. The only things that works for are support models that become redundant when spammed. You are also only right about it causing worse balance if underpowered factions are not addressed. GW is addressing balance issues, so restrictions make it much easier to balance the game, because it reveals the areas where change is needed, spam avoids this issue by only highlighting a few problem units.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:25:30


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


Hard to say if that part comes true, but I think he's basically saying that tougher things will be on the table. Softer things will be in deepstrike. There is less worry about certain direct counters to those tougher things, because deepstrikers won't interfere. And then we you've repositioned you can go tit for tat with deepstrikers - cover your own lines - assault theirs.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:28:12


Post by: Rune Stonegrinder


tneva82 wrote:


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


I like the cut of your jib.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:32:26


Post by: Daedalus81


 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

I like the cut of your jib.


Spoiler:


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:40:38


Post by: tedurur


tneva82 wrote:
tedurur wrote:
Lets say Flyrants went down 20 points and they didnt have the 0-3 limitation. Do you think that would create more issues than if the were 0-3? The 0-3 limitation is a failsafe for when internal balancing is non optimal (as it always will be).


It's putting head in the sand and pretending there's no issue. Flytyrant too cheap? Add the price rather than limitation. Limitation btw that isn't even for flytyrant but GAME WIDE. Which results in other than flytyrants being affected. Which, as btw real life experience has shown before since these kind of game wide limitations have been repeatedly tried in past 20 years, will result in further imbalance where strong armies shrug it off while other armies go from about playable to junk and weak armies go even weaker.

Many many many(including GW) has tried these sort of blanket restrictions in past 20 years(can't verify have they been tried before since I didn't play GW games before). Every time it has created more problems in balance than it solved. This attempt isn't even particularly creative or good one. There's been much better attempts before. Yet they failed. Not once it was actually succesfull.

If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the problem rather than just apply blanket wide restrictions. Those provenly leads to more balance problems. If this was first time somebody would try sure give it a shot. But this is super old repeatedly tried concept. Why anybody is still naive enough it might work this time without actually changing anything about it...


It's not "putting your head in the sand", it's "not living in fantasy land". GW (or any other company) will never ever be able to perfectly balance each unit. Can you give an example as to how not being able to spam broken units will make the game less balanced? If you have a limited amount of computer power and want to simulate something it makes sense that you limit the effects of extreme boundary conditions.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:42:40


Post by: techsoldaten


 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
tneva82 wrote:


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


I like the cut of your jib.


Seconded. Arbitrary unit limitations favor the armies with the most powerful units, which - in all cases - happen to be shooty.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:50:27


Post by: admironheart


Well the Rule of 3 is basically the old Highlander rule from the mid 90's but updated for the size of armies in todays 40K.

Back then you had like 6 to 8 units. Now you have at least double that on average.

So I am all for that


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:57:40


Post by: Sim-Life


 techsoldaten wrote:
 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
tneva82 wrote:


You realize these FAQ changes aren't invented first time ever here?

That they have been tried before? Especially the 0-3 limit. That's been tried AT LEAST since I started GW games so since 1998.

Every...single...time...it led to worse balance where powerful armies gained compared to weaker ones. Just like now.

And the result is also sooooo easy to predict. I don't understand how people keep trying it. Blanket rules NEVER work as balance method. You need to fix specific problems rather than apply game wide blanket. People have tried that for 20 years MINIMUM(I can't say did people do that pre-1998 since I didnt' play then) without working.

It's...been...tried. It has failed. Now GW implements it with nothing NEW in it. Same format as has been tried. Which has failed. And people think it's now going to work? Yeah right and santa clause visits every home in the world in one night.

But if you disagree please explain how something that has been tried repeatedly for 20 years minimum while failing every single time somehow now with no changes whatsoever would work? Please go ahead. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though. Would be dead before you could come up with plausible reason.


I like the cut of your jib.


Seconded. Arbitrary unit limitations favor the armies with the most powerful units, which - in all cases - happen to be shooty.


The difference between now and 20 years ago is that the units that are too powerful don't have to worry that in 6 months they'll be nerfed.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 12:59:58


Post by: Bharring


I'm curious if the game really will move on to durability.

Look at the Devs vs Reapers discussion. We discussed that Devs could have 2.5x the durability compared to Reapers having 1.5x the firepower at the same-ish points, if Devs took cheap chumps and Reapers took more fully-armed members. The consensus was that that was what made Reapers OP and Devs trash.

So more than doubling durability of a firebase unit in a gunline was worth less than getting half again the firepower.

I really hope the analysis is accurate, and output ceases to be the only thing that matters in unit choices.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:03:02


Post by: the_scotsman


 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:17:48


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.


I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:24:44


Post by: Earth127


Another problem gunlines (should) face is their inability to bring their full potential to bear. Unless you're playing on planet bowling bal/ too small a table/pure kill (and this one has its own host of issues) a gunline based army willnot mange to attack its proirity tagets properly. Big masses are unwieldy. Tournament Meta was IMHO never dominated by dug in gunlines. There is only one mono-codex-list (IG) and one special character -list(RG) that genuinely placed based on gunline tactics. The reapers of LVO and especially the hive tyrants of Adepticon pack quite a bit of mobility and more concentrated firepower.

The problem reminds me of a quote from Art of War:

They've got us surrounded, now our victory is assured.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:25:10


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


Hard to say if that part comes true, but I think he's basically saying that tougher things will be on the table. Softer things will be in deepstrike. There is less worry about certain direct counters to those tougher things, because deepstrikers won't interfere. And then we you've repositioned you can go tit for tat with deepstrikers - cover your own lines - assault theirs.


What tough units are there in the game that can survive though? Even Magnus in his prime could easily be gunned down and he was IMO the most durable unit in the game. I am struggling to think of anything in my Tzeentch/Thousand sons army that I can use for this kind of purpose and I am drawing a blank really. These alpha strike lists didn't become popular because they could kill lots of stuff. They became popular because having half your army in reserve was the only way to not get shot off the board turn one. If you got lucky and got turn one you could bring your entire army to bear. This edition is just too killy IMO for this rule to exist. If all weapons were limited to 24-inch range on the first turn it could work but as it is right now I think the IG parking lot is going to be start crushing some hopes and dreams.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:30:05


Post by: Bharring


Doesn't it take most of the longrange shooting from most lists to drop Magnus in 1 turn?

You may need to piece trade. But there shouldn't be an individual unit in the open that a full, 2k point gunline *can't* bring down in one turn. At least not short of a Titan.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:40:30


Post by: Earth127


If at 2k your list stops working when a 445 point is destroyed. You either need to rework the list or think how you're gna make said model survive.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:41:44


Post by: Drager


The Salt Mine wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


Hard to say if that part comes true, but I think he's basically saying that tougher things will be on the table. Softer things will be in deepstrike. There is less worry about certain direct counters to those tougher things, because deepstrikers won't interfere. And then we you've repositioned you can go tit for tat with deepstrikers - cover your own lines - assault theirs.


What tough units are there in the game that can survive though? Even Magnus in his prime could easily be gunned down and he was IMO the most durable unit in the game. I am struggling to think of anything in my Tzeentch/Thousand sons army that I can use for this kind of purpose and I am drawing a blank really. These alpha strike lists didn't become popular because they could kill lots of stuff. They became popular because having half your army in reserve was the only way to not get shot off the board turn one. If you got lucky and got turn one you could bring your entire army to bear. This edition is just too killy IMO for this rule to exist. If all weapons were limited to 24-inch range on the first turn it could work but as it is right now I think the IG parking lot is going to be start crushing some hopes and dreams.


A unit of 3 prophets of flesh taloi take about 45 shots from Dark Reapers or 33 from lascannons to bring down on average. That's pretty tough for ~300 points and you can take 3 units of 3 if you want.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 13:46:22


Post by: Daedalus81


The Salt Mine wrote:

What tough units are there in the game that can survive though? Even Magnus in his prime could easily be gunned down and he was IMO the most durable unit in the game. I am struggling to think of anything in my Tzeentch/Thousand sons army that I can use for this kind of purpose and I am drawing a blank really. These alpha strike lists didn't become popular because they could kill lots of stuff. They became popular because having half your army in reserve was the only way to not get shot off the board turn one. If you got lucky and got turn one you could bring your entire army to bear. This edition is just too killy IMO for this rule to exist. If all weapons were limited to 24-inch range on the first turn it could work but as it is right now I think the IG parking lot is going to be start crushing some hopes and dreams.


Rubric marines are a rock in cover. And now that you don't have to worry about DS you can potentially deploy them forward.
Magnus is not as weak as people make him out to be and now, again, with no plasma to deepstrike him they have to rely on lascannons/bc/etc. If you deploy him last you can position to reduce their weapon coverage on him considerably.

It is false that people were using deepstrike to guard their list. Deepstrike gave the fastest avenue to effectively placing units.

You might be right about IG, but we will have to wait and see.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 14:09:39


Post by: auticus


Deepstriike is a mechanic where you can place your unit wherever you want without needing to worry about deployment or maneuvering it, and with strategems and other abilities allowed you to even charge (reliably).

That mechanic removes any thought out of the game other than target priority, placing the unit where you want, and then just going through the motions of rolling dice.

The game can (and should) be so much more than that.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 14:53:31


Post by: punisher357


 lolman1c wrote:
I fought many armies that sat at the back of the feild and outright destroyed my entire army by turn 2 (no joke... every single unit was killed by turn 2). These kind of armies don't care about objectives and will continue to dominate the casual scene. I think the majority of players need to understand that most lists can be beaten by a tournament style list but a cheesy list in a casual game is often unbeatable by fluffy armies.

This is, in my mind, what gw needs to fix. So far, me and my friends have just been getting the short ends of the stick from all these "fixes" by having fluffy lists.




The game can only marginally represent the fluff.....the fluff is too extreme and is not quantifiable. If you're getting destroyed by turn 2 it sounds like : 1. The board doesn't have enough cover 2. You are deploying your army in an extremely ineffective way that's advantageous to your opponent 3. You're trying to beat an army's strengths with your weaknesses.

It doesn't sound like you're playing with casual players or maybe the problem is your tactics....it's a lot easier to blame the other guy and say it's OP than take a hard look at where you can and need to improve


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.


Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

These beta rules are like decades old idea. Never worked before. Won't work just because it's Games Workshop that decided for it. You might believe in santa clause and magical fairies but I believe in actual empirical data. Which has shown these rules to be bad idea despite so many different variations being attempted. Already tried and failed idea won't become magically working just because Games Workshop decides to join the club of repeated failures.


So far as I know 8th edition has never been created until now so the implementation of these new rules in the current addition has never been done in the past. It sounds like you've just drawn your own conclusions prior to any data at all.....most likely because you don't like the new rules implemented because you'll have to change your tactics. Only time will tell if the rules improve the meta or not and we certainly haven't had enough time or games to determine this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimgold wrote:
Read the article, it's nice to see someone taking a more measured approach to evaluating the FAQ. With that said I think he is a little too optimistic on games getting longer, in very competitive venues game length is tightly constrained and I doubt that will change because alpha strike has been blunted.

I suppose he meant that games would be competitive for longer, and I think I can get behind the point. Alpha strikes are meant to snowball you, Drop in kill a quarter of your opponents army, and then he only has 1500 points left to hit you back with. Next turn you lengthen out your lead by killing more, and he can kill even less in return. Your opponent never catches up, and while the game might go on for a few more turns, it was won in a single phase.


That's why everyone is complaining though......they're whining because now their "one and done" tactic doesn't work and allow them to pummel their opponent over and over from the first turn on.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:18:28


Post by: deviantduck


SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:21:29


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.


I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Not so sure that is true - troops are unaffected - SOB best unit is a troop.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:24:12


Post by: Purifying Tempest


 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:32:09


Post by: wuestenfux


Purifying Tempest wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

This kind of nerf or restriction is highly welcome.
After all, it should be a game where armies consist of troops in the first place.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:35:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.


Why? Because A) gunlines are MORE successful in poorly constructed missions and B) he states that the new rules allowed him to go to turn 5/6 instead of the usual 3/4.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:38:55


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Purifying Tempest wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:41:23


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.


Why? Because A) gunlines are MORE successful in poorly constructed missions and B) he states that the new rules allowed him to go to turn 5/6 instead of the usual 3/4.

BS - the games length with be the same because it is based on time in the tournament scene. If you somehow think removing deep-strike (which is a damage ramp) will somehow make the game go faster - you just don't understand the game very much. Also - from my experience - I know - nothing takes longer to play than a gun line with lots of gun.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:47:02


Post by: techsoldaten


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.


Shouldn't need allies to win in tournaments, or shouldn't need allies period?

I'm perfectly fine with the fact some armies are never going to win a tournament. That's only a measure of how well your Codex can produce a TAAC list, and how well it can be optimized to a specific mission pack.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:49:01


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:


BS - the games length with be the same because it is based on time in the tournament scene. If you somehow think removing deep-strike (which is a damage ramp) will somehow make the game go faster - you just don't understand the game very much. Also - from my experience - I know - nothing takes longer to play than a gun line with lots of gun.


I didn't state that he was fully correct. Just that he claimed his games went faster.

Regardless...bad missions = gun lines win.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:52:23


Post by: Primark G


the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:

I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.


His LVO list was a basic gunline (reaperspam with buffing characters) with outliers to deal damage (spears).


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:53:50


Post by: deviantduck


Purifying Tempest wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.
And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.
A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Most lists used 4 or 6 dominions because it filled out the transports properly. SoB was hit fairly hard because we don't have that many units to start, and of those units there's not that many which are competitive. You can still stick 2x5 chicks with 6 storm bolters in the same repressor and shoot out the same way. We just miss out on our scout move which was our bread and butter since we have no deep striking.

 wuestenfux wrote:
This kind of nerf or restriction is highly welcome.
After all, it should be a game where armies consist of troops in the first place.
Why? What makes troops so holier than other units? Furthermore, if troops were so important, why are there 3 detachments that let you completely bypass them? Several of your previous posts keep comparing 40k to 30k. SM mirror matches are not what 40k should be.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 15:54:18


Post by: Asmodios


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.


I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Not so sure that is true - troops are unaffected - SOB best unit is a troop.

So even using your example that 50% of the games he plays don't go the full length then logically 50% do. Considering he most likely plays at least (if not far more) then 10x the amount of games a normal player does then this rule change ends up affecting far more games per week/year or whatever way you want to measure it. Add this to the fact that the tournament scene is moving to chess clocks he will be forced to finish the vast majority of games if he ever wants to be a champion again, so I would imagine the use of clocks will force him to finish 90% if not 100% of his games if he wants to be champion (he will lose if he doesn't finish). So this change actually is going to have a huge effect on him and if will have to do with the full number of rounds played.

Now personally I'm of the opinion that balance is good for both casual and competitive play, as what is good in competitive play tends to be just as good if not better in a more casual environment. Balancing the game should theoretically help all players play a more fun and balanced matchup regardless of their outlook on the game. But I'm a bit confused if you are playing purely casual and want nothing to do with evil "WAAC competitive players" then why are you even going to use the beta rules? Why not just play without the rules you guys don't like? If you have no desire to ever play a tournament or in a competitive at all enviroment why even use the matched play rules?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:04:12


Post by: Galas


I agree that the Rule of Three is hamfisted and it will need more adjustements to make it work.

But I disagree with the notion that the game should led you take what amount of units you want. Not with the fact that a game can permit that, I have 0 problems with spam, but with the notion from a gaming design standpoint that limiting units is bad.

Theres a reason card games normally only allow you to take 2, 3 or 4 copies of the same card. Hearthstone for example has a limit of 2 copies of each card, 1 for legendaries.
You could say "But why can't I have 5 Loathebs?! Thats because he is just OP, so they only allow me to have one!" and... thats a legitimate gaming design decision. To have some units/cards/options be powerfull but limited in use or number.

Thats what GW (Intended) to do with named characters. Powerfull individual units with unique habilities that are "balanced" by the fact that you can only use one. Of course, thats the theory and in reality they where normally or just very bad or just so powerfull that did make all their respective generalistic options irrelevant. But the theory was absolutely fine. They failed at the time of implementation.

The same happens with the 0-3 Rule.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:05:15


Post by: Xenomancers


I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:09:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.


Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:21:54


Post by: Asmodios


 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

So the only difference in your play vs top tournament players is the victory condition dependent on the game type? why not just play a tournament packet set of games? Even though if your gaming group is using all the same lists then you will most likely see the same changes he is (which he thinks are healthy for the game). Once again though if its really such a big deal and your not playing competitively anyway why would you guys just not use the beta rules?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:24:13


Post by: Primark G


"Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state."

Totally agree on all counts. I am not a fan of maelstrom but I realize it is for fun for the beer & pretzel crowd.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:33:35


Post by: the_scotsman


 techsoldaten wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.


Shouldn't need allies to win in tournaments, or shouldn't need allies period?

I'm perfectly fine with the fact some armies are never going to win a tournament. That's only a measure of how well your Codex can produce a TAAC list, and how well it can be optimized to a specific mission pack.


Are we inventing a new "AAC"? Peregrine, is that you?

"Tactics At All Costs" - jerky, obnoxious players who insist upon building their lists such that they can achieve objectives and win missions for the express purpose of oppressing the poor, disadvantaged point-and-click players.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:39:00


Post by: Grimgold


punisher357 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Read the article, it's nice to see someone taking a more measured approach to evaluating the FAQ. With that said I think he is a little too optimistic on games getting longer, in very competitive venues game length is tightly constrained and I doubt that will change because alpha strike has been blunted.

I suppose he meant that games would be competitive for longer, and I think I can get behind the point. Alpha strikes are meant to snowball you, Drop in kill a quarter of your opponents army, and then he only has 1500 points left to hit you back with. Next turn you lengthen out your lead by killing more, and he can kill even less in return. Your opponent never catches up, and while the game might go on for a few more turns, it was won in a single phase.


That's why everyone is complaining though......they're whining because now their "one and done" tactic doesn't work and allow them to pummel their opponent over and over from the first turn on.


It's one of the amusing oddities of our time that 4chan /tg/ is less salty than dakka. As for the reason for the salt, I'm not sure if they are angry about the loss of one and done, if it has indeed been lost. With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts, so I don't think that's why. If I had to pick a reason why so many otherwise sane and rational dakkanaughts are up in arms about the FAQ I'd blame a hype backlash. The FAQ was slow to come out, which lead to a long hype cycle, However GW didn't even give so much as a hint as to what would be covered. This left people to speculation as to what was in the FAQ, because everyone has bugbears in the rules they want addressed. Then people argued, got entrenched in their ideas about what was going into the FAQ, and when the FAQ didn't match what they thought the FAQ would be like, they raged.

The issues that people fought about before the FAQ, like spam restriction, are the very issues people are saltiest about after the FAQ, because no one like being wrong. Rather than thinking "Maybe my reasoning was wrong" they think "GW has not a clue how to balance". I wish people would just question their own infallibility and watch how the rules interact with the meta before coming here to rage, but then this is the internet.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:50:31


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.


Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.



FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:50:50


Post by: Marmatag


 Grimgold wrote:
With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts,


1. I have said 4 turns is enough for a good game, and that getting to turn 5+ is not a prerequisite for a good game.
2. I have said most games have a clear winner by turn 2, or 3. Doesn't mean the game is over, it just means one person won't be able to generate enough points to come back.
3. Never have I said I enjoy 1 sided blowouts.

If you're going to mention my name, can you at least make an effort not to be a total tool, and represent me with even a modicum of good faith? Thanks


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 16:57:53


Post by: Asmodios


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.


Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.


And nowhere in the rulebook do the beta rules exist..... so why don't you just keep using the stock rulebook if you don't want to use anything from outside of it?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:03:58


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


And there is only one place in the rules that says how to handle rule disputes. That is talk it over or roll a die. So, there's nothing in the rulebook that says to consult a FAQ or errata. I'm sorry but your pure high horse makes it look more like you're on a donkey.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:05:12


Post by: Daedalus81


 Xenomancers wrote:


No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.



Right, but you could finish in 2:30 if you wanted to now, presumably.
A 19 vs 20 man unit is mostly inconsequential as there are plenty of other avenues to get those points and ways you can deny your opponent.

Terrain rules DO leave much to be desired and it's something the community should be more vocal with GW about.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:22:21


Post by: Grimgold


 Marmatag wrote:
 Grimgold wrote:
With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts,


1. I have said 4 turns is enough for a good game, and that getting to turn 5+ is not a prerequisite for a good game.
2. I have said most games have a clear winner by turn 2, or 3. Doesn't mean the game is over, it just means one person won't be able to generate enough points to come back.
3. Never have I said I enjoy 1 sided blowouts.

If you're going to mention my name, can you at least make an effort not to be a total tool, and represent me with even a modicum of good faith? Thanks


1.) In a game designed to go six turns, a turn 2 victory is a blow out.
2.) If the game only has one possible outcome it's over from a competitive sense.
3.) you have to do some pretty interesting mental contortions to call a game over at turn two a "Good game".

As for good faith, you'll get some when you display some.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:22:41


Post by: Orblivion


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


8th edition supposedly went through extensive playtesting with top players just like him (maybe he was even one of them, I don't know) so by that logic these problems shouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm not gonna spout off about how right or wrong he or anyone else in this thread is, but being a top player doesn't make him any more qualified than anyone else in the community when it comes to the rules.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:38:52


Post by: Primark G


Well said Grimgold well said.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:43:24


Post by: Purifying Tempest


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.


Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.


Armies shouldn't NEED allies. True enough. But the Ministurnum needs them. Imperial Knights need them, otherwise they play with how many ever big knights they can and truncate the rest of the points. Practically all of the Imperium benefits from Guard in this edition. Sisters do not NEED allies. I can make a 2000+ point Sororitas army with only Sororitas models while playing with the rule of 3. So I do not NEED allies.

The point is... some codices are so shallow that after a certain point you're just bringing more of the same stuff. It may be on a unit with a different name (BSS vs Dominions with Stormbolters), but in the end, it is just another model with the same weapon. And any time you spam a weapon, you skew your list towards whatever that weapon favors... and your ability to fight a multitude of threats diminishes. You become much better suited at fighting whatever that weapon is best suited to fighting. Which means you become more vulnerable to deviants.

Two codices with problems of diminishing returns seem (to me) to be:

Gray Knights - no matter how you shake them up... it is just permutations of the Psycannon, Psilencer, and Incinerator.
Sororitas - variations of mid-close weapons, a la Stormbolter, Flamer, and Melta (with their heavy variants)

Both of these codices have always spammed whatever tool in their kit worked at the time. Neither was particularly renown for being tactically flexible. Both also seemed to perform much better when they were able to place the onus of playing against them on the opponent instead of having to play against the opponent.

Allies were a great addition both narrative wise and tactics wise because it allows you to "forge a narrative" while also shoring up some of those weaknesses to change the repetitive theme of some of the less expanded armies. Adding guard to Sororitas isn't something you're required to do... but it can add a little flair and advantage for doing so.

Otherwise, you should spend more time fussing at GW to expand your line instead of fussing at rules because you cannot spam 1 model type to win games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Orblivion wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


8th edition supposedly went through extensive playtesting with top players just like him (maybe he was even one of them, I don't know) so by that logic these problems shouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm not gonna spout off about how right or wrong he or anyone else in this thread is, but being a top player doesn't make him any more qualified than anyone else in the community when it comes to the rules.


Pretty sure 8th edition was play tested for mechanics and functionality... not balance and competitiveness. I bet not a single codex was playtested during their extensive testing of the edition that they claimed.

Edit: Clarification - the edition was testing at the index level, not the codex level.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:44:53


Post by: techsoldaten


Nick is doing a Q&A on Facebook right now.

https://www.facebook.com/143252259677237/videos/160019664667163/


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:45:37


Post by: Xenomancers


Asmodios wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.


Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.


And nowhere in the rulebook do the beta rules exist..... so why don't you just keep using the stock rulebook if you don't want to use anything from outside of it?

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And there is only one place in the rules that says how to handle rule disputes. That is talk it over or roll a die. So, there's nothing in the rulebook that says to consult a FAQ or errata. I'm sorry but your pure high horse makes it look more like you're on a donkey.

So you manage to try to insult me without even making a point. We aren't talking about rules disputes. We are talking about game balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ask him how he has a 95% WR in a dice game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 17:56:30


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:09:01


Post by: Bharring


It's kinda biased. The first pair of 'beta rules' were live in the community before GW put them out as 'beta rules'. Them not making to the official rules would have been very strange.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:37:51


Post by: Lemondish


 Xenomancers wrote:

Ask him how he has a 95% WR in a dice game.


This is the best, because he totally called out dakka for its nonsense lol


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:38:27


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Xenomancer- You're the person who is saying he only plays by the book rules (kind of like BaconCatBug). If you are going to be so "pure" then that means you can't really ever play a game. The rules are full of gaps and contradictions and the only mechanism that the book allows for resolution is either both players agree or they roll dice. However, the book does not allow you to consult other sources for those rule clarifications so you must dice off a lot or spend a lot of time disucssing things with your opponent.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:43:37


Post by: techsoldaten


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Xenomancer- You're the person who is saying he only plays by the book rules (kind of like BaconCatBug). If you are going to be so "pure" then that means you can't really ever play a game. The rules are full of gaps and contradictions and the only mechanism that the book allows for resolution is either both players agree or they roll dice. However, the book does not allow you to consult other sources for those rule clarifications so you must dice off a lot or spend a lot of time disucssing things with your opponent.


@Leo_the_Rat, it's Xenomancers - plural.

It's important to get his name right if you are going to derail the thread with unconstructive trash talk, otherwise I won't know who to block.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:43:56


Post by: kodos


 Orblivion wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


8th edition supposedly went through extensive playtesting with top players just like him (maybe he was even one of them, I don't know) so by that logic these problems shouldn't have existed in the first place.


This depends on how playtesting worked, how the data was collected and what made it to the final rules

If testing was just the top tournament players brought their favourite lists, played some games and than told the designer what units the feel are too good/cheap and what is bad than it was playtested but design decisions based on such data give you the mess we call 40k.

As this is the first edition for a long time were playtesting was done at all, GW need to learn how to do it and how to make chances based on the collected data.
it doesn't matter who is testing the game if the designer get the wrong information back and/or make the wrong decisions


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:44:02


Post by: Captain Joystick


He made his points, was concise, and explained his reasoning. All without falling into the hyperbole we're seeing here, it was refreshing.

Also, he answered my question! Consider me dazzled.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:45:23


Post by: Asmodios


 Xenomancers wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.


Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.


And nowhere in the rulebook do the beta rules exist..... so why don't you just keep using the stock rulebook if you don't want to use anything from outside of it?

Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
And there is only one place in the rules that says how to handle rule disputes. That is talk it over or roll a die. So, there's nothing in the rulebook that says to consult a FAQ or errata. I'm sorry but your pure high horse makes it look more like you're on a donkey.

So you manage to try to insult me without even making a point. We aren't talking about rules disputes. We are talking about game balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ask him how he has a 95% WR in a dice game.

You said you don't want to use rules outside the rulebook (tournament packs, special objects, ect) why not just use the physical rulebook. If you and your group don't like a certain FAQ simply don't use it... your not looking to play competitively so whats the difference. If you guys love the regualr non FAQed data sheet and deepstrike rules just use them.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:48:54


Post by: techsoldaten


 Captain Joystick wrote:
He made his points, was concise, and explained his reasoning. All without falling into the hyperbole we're seeing here, it was refreshing.

Also, he answered my question! Consider me dazzled.


I disagreed with the points he made about Grey Knights. I did not think the FAQ changes make them top tier, or that MSU smite spam is going to dominate competitions.

Other than that, he made some great points about changes to the meta.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 18:51:43


Post by: Primark G


He is just out to make a fast buck.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:05:54


Post by: Lemondish


 Primark G wrote:
He is just out to make a fast buck.


Do you ever have anything of value to share?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:08:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 techsoldaten wrote:
 Captain Joystick wrote:
He made his points, was concise, and explained his reasoning. All without falling into the hyperbole we're seeing here, it was refreshing.

Also, he answered my question! Consider me dazzled.


I disagreed with the points he made about Grey Knights. I did not think the FAQ changes make them top tier, or that MSU smite spam is going to dominate competitions.

Other than that, he made some great points about changes to the meta.


Hmm? He called GK out as still being in trouble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Primark G wrote:
He is just out to make a fast buck.


Sure and his revenue will dry up as soon as he starts being unable to take top tables.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:17:22


Post by: techsoldaten


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He is just out to make a fast buck.


Sure and his revenue will dry up as soon as he starts being unable to take top tables.


He might be after more than money.

Has anyone checked with law enforcement about homicides occurring during the tournaments he's won?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:21:24


Post by: Crimson


I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:24:49


Post by: Galas


 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that. We have been doing it since the beginning of 8th. I know you could use the "Idontremembermodel syndrome" , but it just doesnt not feel right.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:28:00


Post by: Crimson


 Galas wrote:

We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that.

Well, but that's not a rule. I'm not sure "this terrible rule is not a problem because we use this houserule that counteracts it" is terribly solid reasoning in this context.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:29:38


Post by: Galas


 Crimson wrote:
 Galas wrote:

We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that.

Well, but that's not a rule. I'm not sure "this terrible rule is not a problem because we use this houserule that counteracts it" is terribly solid reasoning in this context.


Well, you could put an objetive on top of a giant chimmey and then put a Vindicare on top of it, outside of the range of most weapons in the table. I have seen that done, and thats the moment we decided for objetives to be always put at floor level.
The problem will be, and has always been the same. I didn't like the "my models aren't in meele but they are in meele because they are theoretically floating in space or climbing this wall and..." it doesnt feel intuitive.




FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:34:45


Post by: Asmodai


 Galas wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



We always play in tournaments in my region (Galicia, Spain) that objetive markers are always put at floor level. I don't know if thats a ETC specification or something. But its just to avoid that. We have been doing it since the beginning of 8th. I know you could use the "Idontremembermodel syndrome" , but it just doesnt not feel right.


IIRC, the ITC missions also specify where objectives go.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:37:26


Post by: Lady Pacifica


Assault armies have suffered a pretty huge nerf with the new deepstrike rules. Consider though the mirror match, before when two melee armies fought each other, it was often a matter of who went first to decide the game. Now, both melee armies have a better chance at a fair reaction against melee armies.
As for gunlines, glass cannon charges are simply no longer viable on their own anymore. Tanker units like the humble rhino are going to increase in importance. You would be shocked how well a line of rhinos can soak up a guard shooting phase. Instead of double swords, melee armies now must consider both their sword (high damage chargers) and their shields (point efficient damage sponges). This is a pretty big shakeup in strategy, but one I think most melee armies have the capacity to deal with.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:38:11


Post by: Martel732


Rhinos are one of the few durable models in the marine codex.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:38:35


Post by: Crimson


 Asmodai wrote:

IIRC, the ITC missions also specify where objectives go.

Right. This is why the insights of these tournament players are of questionable value. They play a heavily houseruled version of the game.



FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:41:39


Post by: EnTyme


 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:45:01


Post by: Purifying Tempest


 EnTyme wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.


He also said to shoot one guy off of the upper floor and off you go. It isn't a big deal because at the end of the day it is 1 little thing in a much bigger pond. If you lose to that 1 little thing... I'm sure there were a dozen other little things that led you to that point. And if not... congratulate your opponent for a savvy play.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:45:49


Post by: Crimson


 EnTyme wrote:

We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.

Well, it is.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:48:56


Post by: Leo_the_Rat


Everyone plays with house rules since the game demands that they do. There are too many gaps and conflicts within the BRB for people to do anything other than make house rules if they want to play the game. Anyone who claims that they don't use any house rules is either lying or deluding themselves.

Just for examples of problems check out BaconCatBug's sig.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:49:33


Post by: Marmatag


 Grimgold wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 Grimgold wrote:
With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts,


1. I have said 4 turns is enough for a good game, and that getting to turn 5+ is not a prerequisite for a good game.
2. I have said most games have a clear winner by turn 2, or 3. Doesn't mean the game is over, it just means one person won't be able to generate enough points to come back.
3. Never have I said I enjoy 1 sided blowouts.

If you're going to mention my name, can you at least make an effort not to be a total tool, and represent me with even a modicum of good faith? Thanks


1.) In a game designed to go six turns, a turn 2 victory is a blow out.
2.) If the game only has one possible outcome it's over from a competitive sense.
3.) you have to do some pretty interesting mental contortions to call a game over at turn two a "Good game".

As for good faith, you'll get some when you display some.


Hey look, you're trying to recreate an argument that begins with a purposeful misrepresentation of what I have said in OTHER THREADS. Congratulations on being "that guy" on the forums. I'll put you on my ignore list now, so when you attempt to drag my name through the mud without even being prompted (Seriously. Where in this thread did the number of turns come up with my name associated with it?) , I won't have to see it. Cheers, hopefully you run out of chainaxes to grind.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:52:22


Post by: Ordana


Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:53:15


Post by: rhinoceraids


 EnTyme wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.


i use'd to play it that way too. Now I just try to place my 3 objectives on the ground. If my opponent places theirs up in ruins thats fine. I have some troops to jump up.

Building a balanced list is important. If you have an entire army of tanks and all the objectives are up in ruins hopefully you get lucky objectives or table your opponent...


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:54:08


Post by: Xenomancers


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 19:57:22


Post by: Ice_can


 Xenomancers wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.



The troll responce would where can I get an invulnerable save against mortal wounds?
What I find more annoying is the worst offenders of MW psychic spam TS got a get out of jail free card for this nerf.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:02:28


Post by: Xenomancers


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Xenomancer- You're the person who is saying he only plays by the book rules (kind of like BaconCatBug). If you are going to be so "pure" then that means you can't really ever play a game. The rules are full of gaps and contradictions and the only mechanism that the book allows for resolution is either both players agree or they roll dice. However, the book does not allow you to consult other sources for those rule clarifications so you must dice off a lot or spend a lot of time disucssing things with your opponent.

Which is exactly why the game is not meant to have a time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.



The troll responce would where can I get an invulnerable save against mortal wounds?
What I find more annoying is the worst offenders of MW psychic spam TS got a get out of jail free card for this nerf.

With their massive 1 damage smite? Plus this GK? Please. Smite has an average damage - so does a las cannon. Both have special saves that you can take against them. People are just cry babies that they don't get to take saves. It's totally okay for plasma guns and blasters to wreck space marines with no saves though.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:06:18


Post by: Marmatag


The smite nerf was a good adjustment. As someone who was impacted by it, it's healthier for the game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:09:29


Post by: Xenomancers


Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Everyone plays with house rules since the game demands that they do. There are too many gaps and conflicts within the BRB for people to do anything other than make house rules if they want to play the game. Anyone who claims that they don't use any house rules is either lying or deluding themselves.

Just for examples of problems check out BaconCatBug's sig.

The one house rule we play with is vehicles and monsters can gain a cover save by being 50% obstructed - because that's the way it has always been. If someone says they don't want to use that rule we have no problem playing by the actual rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Marmatag wrote:
The smite nerf was a good adjustment. As someone who was impacted by it, it's healthier for the game.
Spamming scion transports though...that is okay why? It's also perfectly legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 rhinoceraids wrote:
 EnTyme wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
I'm listening the Q&A now. He says that filled floors being unassaultable is not a big deal because people don't put objectives in upper floors of ruins... I almost always do that and I've seen plenty of other people doing it too. I don't follow his reasoning.



We've always played objectives as having infinite height. Didn't know that was a house rule.


i use'd to play it that way too. Now I just try to place my 3 objectives on the ground. If my opponent places theirs up in ruins thats fine. I have some troops to jump up.

Building a balanced list is important. If you have an entire army of tanks and all the objectives are up in ruins hopefully you get lucky objectives or table your opponent...


I always place objectives out in the open. It avoids silly interactions and allows me to destroy enemy units easier.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:16:08


Post by: Ice_can


Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:23:18


Post by: Ordana


Ice_can wrote:
Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.
Correct. All Psykers in a TS detachment gain Brotherhood of Sorcerers,

Funny enough if you have any others Psykers who want to Smite you need to cast them last because they will increase the warp value for your TS/GK's.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:23:26


Post by: Xenomancers


Ice_can wrote:
Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.

I know - I wasn't trying to be rude if you thought I was. 1 damage smite sucks - I play GK and TS. I'd actually prefer a plasma gun.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:36:10


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ordana wrote:
Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.


GSC and other super fast on-table assaulters in addition to people transitioning to more durable on table lists - like stuff in rhinos.

If you're facing 9 Basilisks they can kill a couple rhinos OR they can kill a couple predators. If you don't do the rhinos they're going to pope smoke and be on you. If you didn't get first turn they'll pop smoke. If you do kill the rhinos the troops are still coming and the predators are shooting.

In general anyways.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:39:43


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.


GSC and other super fast on-table assaulters in addition to people transitioning to more durable on table lists - like stuff in rhinos.

If you're facing 9 Basilisks they can kill a couple rhinos OR they can kill a couple predators. If you don't do the rhinos they're going to pope smoke and be on you. If you didn't get first turn they'll pop smoke. If you do kill the rhinos the troops are still coming and the predators are shooting.

In general anyways.

Ahh yes - the auto lose stratagy of trying to ride trasnports to gun lines. Attempting to win the game on objectives without even attacking your opponent. IDK why anyone thinks this is the way the game should be - though there are some people that like that I guess. Again - it would only work in a tournament with a 2 1/2 hour time limit. If you played that against me in a pickup game using the same rules without a time limit - I'd table the army in 5 turn and probably have lost next to nothing.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:40:44


Post by: Primark G


I heard he is suggesting spamming serpents now.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:41:26


Post by: Daedalus81


 Primark G wrote:
I heard he is suggesting spamming serpents now.


No, he went against that.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:46:55


Post by: Primark G


It was discussed.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:48:49


Post by: Ice_can


 Xenomancers wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Just to be clear I was calling it out as a troll responce as it wasn't ment to be taken seriously.

But its not just baby smite its all TS are except from the smite nerf even magnus and ahriman. I understood brotherhood of psyker effects every TS psyker in a batteforged detachment.

I know - I wasn't trying to be rude if you thought I was. 1 damage smite sucks - I play GK and TS. I'd actually prefer a plasma gun.

Nah just wanted to make sure as tone on the internet is hard to convey.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:50:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 Primark G wrote:
It was discussed.


I'll watch it again, but his point was that it's durable, but will sacrifice too much damage.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:54:32


Post by: Ice_can


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Did he explain why the armies will stop trying to shoot hard? Because it kinda underpins his entire point.


GSC and other super fast on-table assaulters in addition to people transitioning to more durable on table lists - like stuff in rhinos.

If you're facing 9 Basilisks they can kill a couple rhinos OR they can kill a couple predators. If you don't do the rhinos they're going to pope smoke and be on you. If you didn't get first turn they'll pop smoke. If you do kill the rhinos the troops are still coming and the predators are shooting.

In general anyways.

A yes shoot predators at the what 2/3 Basilisics you can draw line of sight to and do exactly what when turn two rolls round and they rofl stomp your predators.
Playing on open tables favours IG over anything but Alitoc or maybe tau. Playing on heavy terrain and IG still rofl stomp.
This is 40k IG eddition at this point.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:56:24


Post by: Daedalus81


Ice_can wrote:

A yes shoot predators at the what 2/3 Basilisics you can draw line of sight to and do exactly what when turn two rolls round and they rofl stomp your predators.
Playing on open tables favours IG over anything but Alitoc or maybe tau. Playing on heavy terrain and IG still rofl stomp.
This is 40k IG eddition at this point.


You can hide Basilisks. You can't easily hide the fabled 9 that people say will show up. Any damage to them is a strong reduction in the IG's shooting power since they'd be 1300 points of the list.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 20:56:48


Post by: mokoshkana


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
It was discussed.


I'll watch it again, but his point was that it's durable, but will sacrifice too much damage.

It depends on the rest of one's list. Lawrence from TTT played Eldar in a tournament with a farseer, 3x Hemlocks, and 5x Wave Serpents in order to spam Mortal Wounds. He won the event while playing no dark reapers of shining spears...


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 21:10:22


Post by: Primark G


Yeah it is strong and takes no brain power just chuck the dice.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 21:32:23


Post by: Ice_can


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

A yes shoot predators at the what 2/3 Basilisics you can draw line of sight to and do exactly what when turn two rolls round and they rofl stomp your predators.
Playing on open tables favours IG over anything but Alitoc or maybe tau. Playing on heavy terrain and IG still rofl stomp.
This is 40k IG eddition at this point.


You can hide Basilisks. You can't easily hide the fabled 9 that people say will show up. Any damage to them is a strong reduction in the IG's shooting power since they'd be 1300 points of the list.

Also you only have to worry about hiding the ones in range Removing 2 maybe 3 out of 9 isnt really going to swing it though. That 216 to 324 points for 2 and 3 respectivly
Removing 2 predators a turn is between 300 to 380 points gone.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 21:43:47


Post by: silashand


 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


I know I don't trust his opinion on spam since he came out against it in his blog, but every list he has taken to major events that I can recall has been nothing but spam. He is definitely a good player (I have played him once and he stomped me), but I wonder how much of his ability is tied to how well he can come up with broken combos better than other people. Just a thought anyway...


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 21:55:32


Post by: Tyel


 silashand wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


I know I don't trust his opinion on spam since he came out against it in his blog, but every list he has taken to major events that I can recall has been nothing but spam. He is definitely a good player (I have played him once and he stomped me), but I wonder how much of his ability is tied to how well he can come up with broken combos better than other people. Just a thought anyway...


List building is probably the most important skill in 40k - and most games where there are comparable choices to be made. To some extent this is about the meta but first comes maths.

Other than that I would say you have remembering stats & calculating probabilities - in order to determine target priority.
Remembering rules - which you kind of should have if you are playing the game seriously and regularly attending tournaments. You need to know your army, their army, the mission etc.
Finally being able to do the above while under the pressure of a game (and you might say games should be pressure - but in a big tournament it is obviously there.)

Good players are usually defined by the last 3, because having a good list in an internet age is more or less a given. I think however its a fantasy that top players could turn up with a garbage list (i.e. math it out and it sucks) and then win every game. They would just get shot off the table.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 22:07:25


Post by: Breng77


 silashand wrote:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
I know Nick Nanavati is a better player than me, and I would bet real money he's a better player than you, Marm. If you're not going to trust someone who's consistently put up results as a top player to understand the fundamentals of the game, who can you trust?


I know I don't trust his opinion on spam since he came out against it in his blog, but every list he has taken to major events that I can recall has been nothing but spam. He is definitely a good player (I have played him once and he stomped me), but I wonder how much of his ability is tied to how well he can come up with broken combos better than other people. Just a thought anyway...


I think that is a difference on the idea of spam. I think to high end tournament players spam is things like 7 flyrants, or 30 reapers. I cannot think of one of his lists that brings more than 4 of any particular unit. I mean what is the spam in his LVO list Reapers? If I bring 17 tactical marines is that spam? Or are we changing the definition based on unit effectiveness?

In the end my take away from his article on spam was don’t just find one unit that is effective and take all your points in that unit.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 22:32:26


Post by: Primark G


He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 22:34:51


Post by: Arachnofiend


His Adepticon Poxwalker list is actually legal under the post-FAQ rules, so he definitely wasn't "spamming" there.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 22:47:29


Post by: Nym


Ice_can wrote:
What I find more annoying is the worst offenders of MW psychic spam TS got a get out of jail free card for this nerf.

So... 140-180pts characters that deal 1.666 MW each turn with Smite are "the worst offenders" ? Or MEQ units with a minimal cost of 107pts dealing 0.833 MW ?

Just so you know, Primaris Psykers cost 46pts and deal the same amount of MW as TS characters. Before the Beta rules, people would frequently bring 10 of them (that's 16 MW per turn) in a list and still have 1500pts left for things like Basilisks and Manticores. Cheap psykers with a full Smite ARE the worst offenders. Very expensive units are not.

Xenomancer is right : the Smite nerf was unneeded. Giving mini-smite to every Psyker under 70pts was the real fix to this issue.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 23:17:00


Post by: Ice_can


 Nym wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
What I find more annoying is the worst offenders of MW psychic spam TS got a get out of jail free card for this nerf.

So... 140-180pts characters that deal 1.666 MW each turn with Smite are "the worst offenders" ? Or MEQ units with a minimal cost of 107pts dealing 0.833 MW ?

Just so you know, Primaris Psykers cost 46pts and deal the same amount of MW as TS characters. Before the Beta rules, people would frequently bring 10 of them (that's 16 MW per turn) in a list and still have 1500pts left for things like Basilisks and Manticores. Cheap psykers with a full Smite ARE the worst offenders. Very expensive units are not.

Xenomancer is right : the Smite nerf was unneeded. Giving mini-smite to every Psyker under 70pts was the real fix to this issue.

Can't say its been a problem I've seen personally.
TS being able to through down so many psychic powers at undeniably ranges 24 full smites from 12" move models and rerolls the first fail with a 5++ was way more of an issue than IG taking something other than NLOS castles.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/18 23:33:55


Post by: Daedalus81


Ice_can wrote:

Can't say its been a problem I've seen personally.
TS being able to through down so many psychic powers at undeniably ranges 24 full smites from 12" move models and rerolls the first fail with a 5++ was way more of an issue than IG taking something other than NLOS castles.


Wat? The shaman with a single cast per turn and a single reroll per game at 90 points and 4 wounds was the real problem?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 00:05:31


Post by: Ice_can


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

Can't say its been a problem I've seen personally.
TS being able to through down so many psychic powers at undeniably ranges 24 full smites from 12" move models and rerolls the first fail with a 5++ was way more of an issue than IG taking something other than NLOS castles.


Wat? The shaman with a single cast per turn and a single reroll per game at 90 points and 4 wounds was the real problem?

The untargetable charictors with a 12inch move and advance was indead a problem when the run away from your charging guys and MW them to death and leave you the only option of cleansing the board of everything not a charictor while taking the MW.
I can't remeber anything having worse than a 5++ in the entire army with lots having better.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 00:21:05


Post by: Lemondish


 Xenomancers wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.


Lascannons don't cause mortal wounds. Checkmate.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:01:55


Post by: Breng77


 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:04:17


Post by: Primark G


You can spam any unit. If you spam tactical Marines you’ll always be able to get games.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:06:11


Post by: Breng77


I mean even post FAQ you can run 30 reapers. I’ve played against the list and while the reapers are a big deal, without the spears and guardians reapers are not near so scary.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:08:44


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:09:14


Post by: Primark G


They got pointed up so no one will play them anymore competitvely.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:13:09


Post by: Xenomancers


Lemondish wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.


Lascannons don't cause mortal wounds. Checkmate.
I know you are joking but heres the point. It doesn't matter that it's a mortal wound. FNP is an invunerable against mortals and you can get it in any army a 6+++ is very easy to aquire (often for free) - plus you can deny the power to begin with. It's never been OP except for when you could get 30 point maliefic lords. I mean...that was broken dude I admit. Plus even spiritseers at 45 points were too low - even as an Eldar player I can admit that. The neurothrope though at 70 always felt about right to me - and thats where they put the spirit seer. I mean if you really think about it - smite already got nerfed by over 100% on the malifec lord and nearly that much on the spirit seer.



FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:21:05


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


Then as I said you guys missed the point of the article entirely. At least by my reading it was “don’t just take 50 reapers, take other units to cover your bases in bad matchups and allow for board control etc.” I’m pretty sure no one ever has called 15 scouts in an army scout spam, or 20 tactical marines tactical marine spam. So apparently spam in the Dakka community is entirely based on if a unit is powerful and someone takes more than 1 or 2. Though you could have 20 reapers in 2 squads so maybe it is just taking redundancy in effective units. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen 3 Leman russes (or even 4) refered to as Leman ruse spam and that is more points than those 17 reapers. So as I said it is a matter of how you define spam and your definition isn’t one held by all not is it consistently applied.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:27:51


Post by: Audustum


Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


Then as I said you guys missed the point of the article entirely. At least by my reading it was “don’t just take 50 reapers, take other units to cover your bases in bad matchups and allow for board control etc.” I’m pretty sure no one ever has called 15 scouts in an army scout spam, or 20 tactical marines tactical marine spam. So apparently spam in the Dakka community is entirely based on if a unit is powerful and someone takes more than 1 or 2. Though you could have 20 reapers in 2 squads so maybe it is just taking redundancy in effective units. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen 3 Leman russes (or even 4) refered to as Leman ruse spam and that is more points than those 17 reapers. So as I said it is a matter of how you define spam and your definition isn’t one held by all not is it consistently applied.


Wow, you and I are in agreement here.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:29:31


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


Then as I said you guys missed the point of the article entirely. At least by my reading it was “don’t just take 50 reapers, take other units to cover your bases in bad matchups and allow for board control etc.” I’m pretty sure no one ever has called 15 scouts in an army scout spam, or 20 tactical marines tactical marine spam. So apparently spam in the Dakka community is entirely based on if a unit is powerful and someone takes more than 1 or 2. Though you could have 20 reapers in 2 squads so maybe it is just taking redundancy in effective units. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen 3 Leman russes (or even 4) refered to as Leman ruse spam and that is more points than those 17 reapers. So as I said it is a matter of how you define spam and your definition isn’t one held by all not is it consistently applied.

Spam is a bunch of the same unit being used. 5 squads of Tactical Marines is as much spam as 5 Hive Tyrants.

That's why the issue is unit price, not if the unit is being used a lot.

For the record as well, an army looks terrible when it's one of those one-of-everything armies.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:36:11


Post by: Daedalus81


Ice_can wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

Can't say its been a problem I've seen personally.
TS being able to through down so many psychic powers at undeniably ranges 24 full smites from 12" move models and rerolls the first fail with a 5++ was way more of an issue than IG taking something other than NLOS castles.


Wat? The shaman with a single cast per turn and a single reroll per game at 90 points and 4 wounds was the real problem?

The untargetable charictors with a 12inch move and advance was indead a problem when the run away from your charging guys and MW them to death and leave you the only option of cleansing the board of everything not a charictor while taking the MW.
I can't remeber anything having worse than a 5++ in the entire army with lots having better.


The Daemon Prince, Ahriman, and Magnus have a 4++. Everything else barring cultists and regular vehicles have a 5++.

You're literally the first person I see complain about Shamans in this way. It'd be way harder to get at a primaris psyker behind conscripts.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 01:54:10


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


Then as I said you guys missed the point of the article entirely. At least by my reading it was “don’t just take 50 reapers, take other units to cover your bases in bad matchups and allow for board control etc.” I’m pretty sure no one ever has called 15 scouts in an army scout spam, or 20 tactical marines tactical marine spam. So apparently spam in the Dakka community is entirely based on if a unit is powerful and someone takes more than 1 or 2. Though you could have 20 reapers in 2 squads so maybe it is just taking redundancy in effective units. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen 3 Leman russes (or even 4) refered to as Leman ruse spam and that is more points than those 17 reapers. So as I said it is a matter of how you define spam and your definition isn’t one held by all not is it consistently applied.

Spam is a bunch of the same unit being used. 5 squads of Tactical Marines is as much spam as 5 Hive Tyrants.

That's why the issue is unit price, not if the unit is being used a lot.

For the record as well, an army looks terrible when it's one of those one-of-everything armies.


That doesn’t answer why 3 Leman russes isn’t called out as spam but 17 dark reapers is. 3 Russes is more points than 17 reapers were at LVO. I have never once heard anyone look at a list with 3 russes and go “wow look at that Russ spam army.” Heck an entire army of russes rarely if ever gets called out as “spam”. Instead it is tank company. Which is fine, just point out the double standard that it isn’t about unit cost or number of units but instead based entirely on how OP a unit isn’t perceived to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for a one of everything army looking terrible, that really depends on the army IMO. I think orks can pull off a good looking mishmash force because they are orks, and they have larger squads. A force with like 60 Boyz, 30 Gretchen, 10 Nobz in a battle wagon, a gorkanaut etc can look ok. A similar force for marines a bit less so. Especially at 2k points at lower points I think “Highlander” armies can look better because they are a smaller strike force.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 02:52:40


Post by: Xenomancers


I don't even know what you are talking about bro. I used to spam strike squads back when GK could deep strike. No one complained about my 10+ strike squads I was putting out there (except this one slaneesh guy). Now I can't even play the unit with this busted FAQ.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 03:42:20


Post by: Fafnir


The core changes themselves are fine, and I agree with most of his analysis. The problems start coming with how those core changes interact with individual armies, and how those armies interact with other armies.

Guard are the biggest offenders here, but then you have problems revolving around how split up the Dark Eldar book is, how utterly shafted the Inquisition (and its subsidiaries) continues to be, and countless other fringe cases that honestly should not be so fringe.

Ultimately though, I think 40k's alpha strike problem is only ever going to be properly solved by implementing some sort of system of alternating unit activation. Until then, the problems with alpha strike are going to constantly shift with the meta itself, and any fix will feel spotty and heavily reactionary, as opposed to being properly foundational. The constant unfocused arms-race to reinforce problems (Usain Bolt Krakalackin' Genestealers feel like a direct and poorly thought out response to gunline alpha strike that only goes to reinforce the need for turn 1 supremecy, for example) that GW feels the need to implement with each release does not help that either.

Basically, instead of realizing where they went wrong with the state of 8th edition and intentionally designing around it with later releases, developing a meta that can be more healthy once the strongest unhealthy parts are nerfed, GW decides to play ball with the unhealthy elements. Which itself leads to a further growth of these unhealthy states that grows to be a foundational problem that becomes much harder to properly excise.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 03:48:46


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


Then as I said you guys missed the point of the article entirely. At least by my reading it was “don’t just take 50 reapers, take other units to cover your bases in bad matchups and allow for board control etc.” I’m pretty sure no one ever has called 15 scouts in an army scout spam, or 20 tactical marines tactical marine spam. So apparently spam in the Dakka community is entirely based on if a unit is powerful and someone takes more than 1 or 2. Though you could have 20 reapers in 2 squads so maybe it is just taking redundancy in effective units. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen 3 Leman russes (or even 4) refered to as Leman ruse spam and that is more points than those 17 reapers. So as I said it is a matter of how you define spam and your definition isn’t one held by all not is it consistently applied.

Spam is a bunch of the same unit being used. 5 squads of Tactical Marines is as much spam as 5 Hive Tyrants.

That's why the issue is unit price, not if the unit is being used a lot.

For the record as well, an army looks terrible when it's one of those one-of-everything armies.


That doesn’t answer why 3 Leman russes isn’t called out as spam but 17 dark reapers is. 3 Russes is more points than 17 reapers were at LVO. I have never once heard anyone look at a list with 3 russes and go “wow look at that Russ spam army.” Heck an entire army of russes rarely if ever gets called out as “spam”. Instead it is tank company. Which is fine, just point out the double standard that it isn’t about unit cost or number of units but instead based entirely on how OP a unit isn’t perceived to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for a one of everything army looking terrible, that really depends on the army IMO. I think orks can pull off a good looking mishmash force because they are orks, and they have larger squads. A force with like 60 Boyz, 30 Gretchen, 10 Nobz in a battle wagon, a gorkanaut etc can look ok. A similar force for marines a bit less so. Especially at 2k points at lower points I think “Highlander” armies can look better because they are a smaller strike force.

It IS called spam. It just isn't talked about because the Russ isn't the worst offender.
It's kinda like if there were two offending smells but one was durian so you basically won't smell the other and therefore you're only talking about the durian. I can still assure you that the poop in that corner still smells though, even though we aren't talking about it.

Also NO Orks don't make it look good either. It doesn't look good or cohesive. Period.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 04:30:36


Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape


Is there a transcript of nick’s q&a?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 07:28:17


Post by: Tyel


Spam isn't about models on the table but points spent.

So no, 20 tactical marines isn't spam. Its 260 points before weapons/upgrades etc. By contrast 5 Flyrants was... 900 or so (build depending?)

Having one in the list skews it more than the other. Now if you turned up with say 60 tactical marines or something you could accuse them of spam. It would also be rubbish though.

Around 500 points of Dark Reapers is probably borderline on being spam. 30 reapers certainly is. In the same way 3 Russ isn't spam but binging 10 obviously is.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 09:44:01


Post by: Breng77


That is more in my line of thinking, that true spam is either significantly high number of repeated units usually 5 or more (a 3 knight army is not something I would call knight spam) and/or a high percentage of the armies points being dedicated to one unit. So yes 5 flyrants at about half of a 2k list is spam, 10 russes would be spam as it is around 2k points, But to me taking the equivalent to around 3 or 4 min units of something is not spam, and something making up about 25% of your army is not what I would define the army by as far as calling it an x spam army. That would be like me taking 4 x 10 tactical marines and people saying “look at that tactical marine spam army”. Said no one ever because there is 1500 points left in the army. Tactical marine spam would be more like 80 marines making up like half the army.

That said if you view 3 or some unit and or 25% of an armies points being put into a single unit type as spam, then as I said you don’t view it the same way as plenty of other people and as such won’t understand what Nick was saying in the article, because essentially you think any redundancy is spam.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 10:14:35


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Xenomancers wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Uhhh - all these erratas and FAQ are the literally the rule book. Yes "Beta rules" aren't actually rules yet - but judging by the last beta rules - they will be.


Judging by the last beta rules things will be adjusted if they're not working - like smite nerf for Grey Knights and Tzeentch.

Smite nerf was not necessary - every psyker in the game went up points basically - or was already overcosted. Nerfing smite by number of smites is kind of like reducing your chance to hit with a las cannon for every 4 shots you take with one. If you can - explain to me how it's different. Then I will literally destroy your argument with math - to prove it's no different.


I think you misunderstood me here.
You said: The Beta-Rules are the rulebook as they weren't changed.

However, the smite-nerf obviousely was changed after being tested by the community.
So it's possible the current beta rules of Deep strike will be changed when included into the rules, it depends on the community.

If I follow the polls here on dakka though, there's a majority approving of the beta rules.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 12:11:22


Post by: Lemondish


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
He definitely spammed reapers at LVO. If you want to pretend he didn't and wave your hands that is fine but a lot of us know when you are just blowing some more smoke.


Just so we’re clear taking 4 units (3 min units) is spam? 17 models. So if I bring 4 x 5 tactical marines that must be tactical marine spam. Or is it off points so he spend 479 points on those reapers less than 25% of his list. So 3 lascannon devastator squads must be devastator spam. I’m not pretending they were a small part of his list but compared to a lot of dealer lists he was hardly spamming out on reapers. Which was his point

Um yes those are qualification of spam. The difference is the power of the unit being spammed.


Then as I said you guys missed the point of the article entirely. At least by my reading it was “don’t just take 50 reapers, take other units to cover your bases in bad matchups and allow for board control etc.” I’m pretty sure no one ever has called 15 scouts in an army scout spam, or 20 tactical marines tactical marine spam. So apparently spam in the Dakka community is entirely based on if a unit is powerful and someone takes more than 1 or 2. Though you could have 20 reapers in 2 squads so maybe it is just taking redundancy in effective units. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen 3 Leman russes (or even 4) refered to as Leman ruse spam and that is more points than those 17 reapers. So as I said it is a matter of how you define spam and your definition isn’t one held by all not is it consistently applied.

Spam is a bunch of the same unit being used. 5 squads of Tactical Marines is as much spam as 5 Hive Tyrants.

That's why the issue is unit price, not if the unit is being used a lot.

For the record as well, an army looks terrible when it's one of those one-of-everything armies.


That doesn’t answer why 3 Leman russes isn’t called out as spam but 17 dark reapers is. 3 Russes is more points than 17 reapers were at LVO. I have never once heard anyone look at a list with 3 russes and go “wow look at that Russ spam army.” Heck an entire army of russes rarely if ever gets called out as “spam”. Instead it is tank company. Which is fine, just point out the double standard that it isn’t about unit cost or number of units but instead based entirely on how OP a unit isn’t perceived to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for a one of everything army looking terrible, that really depends on the army IMO. I think orks can pull off a good looking mishmash force because they are orks, and they have larger squads. A force with like 60 Boyz, 30 Gretchen, 10 Nobz in a battle wagon, a gorkanaut etc can look ok. A similar force for marines a bit less so. Especially at 2k points at lower points I think “Highlander” armies can look better because they are a smaller strike force.

It IS called spam. It just isn't talked about because the Russ isn't the worst offender.
It's kinda like if there were two offending smells but one was durian so you basically won't smell the other and therefore you're only talking about the durian. I can still assure you that the poop in that corner still smells though, even though we aren't talking about it.

Also NO Orks don't make it look good either. It doesn't look good or cohesive. Period.


So what you're saying is that 3+ of something is spam, no matter what it is. 3 tactical squads. 3 scout sentinels, 3 tanks. You're not being very clear here.

I had always thought spam was selecting a unit above all others and basing the majority of your list and your tactics around it. Flyrant and Dark Talon spam for example. Previously T'au Commander and drone spam.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 12:23:40


Post by: The Salt Mine


 Daedalus81 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.


He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.


I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.


While I do agree with you the book missions leave a bit to be desired. I also feel like GW shouldn't be taking homebrew ITC style things into account when balancing their game. I would venture to say there is a much larger population of 40k players that only use the book missions rather than custom missions. Hell, these missions don't actually do anything to help with the balance they are just shifting whats op to something else.

I've also never understood why people think gunlines can't play objectives well. Almost every gunline I've ever played against in this game is still very mobile elements in their lists and could play the objectives just fine.

These changes also are not going to fix the alpha strike problem. They are merely going to change it from t1 deep striking to long range firepower lists. The first turn alpha strike has always been a huge factor in this game in the 10 years I have played.

All in all though it doesn't really matter what we think or not the changes are in place we all have to live with it and adapt. I'm still going to cry into my pillow at night about warptime though Rip tzaangors I barely knew ye!


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 13:13:28


Post by: Wayniac


I would be curious to see why ITC players don't think gunlines are going to dominate since they removed the one thing that melee armies had to counter them (although alpha deepstrike was still busted).

While Frontline Gaming and the rest of ITC are praising the FAQ and patting themselves on the back for helping to "fix" 40k, I want to see what the longterm changes are going to be since GW seems to be chasing their tail constantly without thinking of what their changes will do to the rest (you know, the big majority) of the game that isn't ITC tournaments.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 13:52:09


Post by: auticus


I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:13:03


Post by: Bharring


Back when Tacs were spammed at tournies, it was called Obsec Spam, and was considered spam. A big difference, though, is that people liked it.

Even when it was good, I'd much rather have gone up against that spam than some other, even less powerful spam.

Some units feel right when spammed. Tac Marines. Ork Boyz. Guardians. Venom Kabalites. Spamming them makes for a distinctive and typically fun game. Sure, I'd rather see demicompany-style lists (the style, not the detatchment) over Tac Marine spam, but there are certainly less fun lists to go up against.

The spam most people complain about - Flyrants, Maelific Lords, Scatter Bikes - aren't just spam, they're "unfun" spam. Part of it is specialization. Those units are very, very good at what they do, and in saturation in their day, they destroyed everything. The spam that isn't as offensive tends to be units that are generalists, or accepted answers to most situations.

It is odd that 3 Russes aren't considered spam because it's not enough points, but 500 points of Reapers are getting into spam territory. Aren't 3 kitted Russes in the same territory?

To counter that, one 500-pt model is typically not spam, but it does define the list the same way 500pts of Guard or Reapers do. One Titan in a 2k game might not be spam, but the list is that titan.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:15:06


Post by: Galef


Bharring wrote:
Back when Tacs were spammed at tournies, it was called Obsec Spam, and was considered spam. A big difference, though, is that people liked it.

Even when it was good, I'd much rather have gone up against that spam than some other, even less powerful spam.

Some units feel right when spammed. Tac Marines. Ork Boyz. Guardians. Venom Kabalites. Spamming them makes for a distinctive and typically fun game. Sure, I'd rather see demicompany-style lists (the style, not the detatchment) over Tac Marine spam, but there are certainly less fun lists to go up against.

The spam most people complain about - Flyrants, Maelific Lords, Scatter Bikes - aren't just spam, they're "unfun" spam. Part of it is specialization. Those units are very, very good at what they do, and in saturation in their day, they destroyed everything. The spam that isn't as offensive tends to be units that are generalists, or accepted answers to most situations.

It is odd that 3 Russes aren't considered spam because it's not enough points, but 500 points of Reapers are getting into spam territory. Aren't 3 kitted Russes in the same territory?

To counter that, one 500-pt model is typically not spam, but it does define the list the same way 500pts of Guard or Reapers do. One Titan in a 2k game might not be spam, but the list is that titan.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Have an exalt!
"Fun" spam are those lists that look most like the fluff: Lots of Troops mixed with some other choices that fit a theme

-


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:19:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


In my opinion, Russ spam is totally cool, as they have had literal decades of fluff across multiple game systems (Epic, 40k, 40k 2nd edition) that they have 1 command tank and 3 squadrons of 3 tanks in a company.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:25:35


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tyel wrote:
Spam isn't about models on the table but points spent.

So no, 20 tactical marines isn't spam. Its 260 points before weapons/upgrades etc. By contrast 5 Flyrants was... 900 or so (build depending?)

Having one in the list skews it more than the other. Now if you turned up with say 60 tactical marines or something you could accuse them of spam. It would also be rubbish though.

Around 500 points of Dark Reapers is probably borderline on being spam. 30 reapers certainly is. In the same way 3 Russ isn't spam but binging 10 obviously is.

That's not how it works.
Under that logic, I could do 80 Cultists and that's not considered spam because that's only...320 points. 60 Cultists is 240.

It's absolutely how many times the unit entry is being used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
That is more in my line of thinking, that true spam is either significantly high number of repeated units usually 5 or more (a 3 knight army is not something I would call knight spam) and/or a high percentage of the armies points being dedicated to one unit. So yes 5 flyrants at about half of a 2k list is spam, 10 russes would be spam as it is around 2k points, But to me taking the equivalent to around 3 or 4 min units of something is not spam, and something making up about 25% of your army is not what I would define the army by as far as calling it an x spam army. That would be like me taking 4 x 10 tactical marines and people saying “look at that tactical marine spam army”. Said no one ever because there is 1500 points left in the army. Tactical marine spam would be more like 80 marines making up like half the army.

That said if you view 3 or some unit and or 25% of an armies points being put into a single unit type as spam, then as I said you don’t view it the same way as plenty of other people and as such won’t understand what Nick was saying in the article, because essentially you think any redundancy is spam.

Based on how people feel about the FAQ, yes any amount of redundancy is spam.

For example, you would typically run 4 Predators because if you only have 3, the opponent needs to kill just one to get rid of Killshot ever happening. Ever just run two Maulerfiends? It doesn't work so you need three to four of them.

The problem at hand is if nobody cares if you run 7 of those units, which means the issue is unit price.

Essentially, spam is what I'm saying it is, and your definition of spam is "stop running a lot of a unit I don't like". Makes sense?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:35:23


Post by: Martel732


Killshot still has value against lists that are mid-range like primaris or you can force longer range lists to shoot a dakka pred perhaps with long range weapons when they'd rather shoot something else.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:38:15


Post by: Daedalus81


 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:
Spoiler:


This is Adepticon:
Spoiler:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:
Spoiler:


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:42:25


Post by: Earth127


Glad to have confirmation that I do indeed play with more terrain that tournaments.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:44:49


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Martel732 wrote:
Killshot still has value against lists that are mid-range like primaris or you can force longer range lists to shoot a dakka pred perhaps with long range weapons when they'd rather shoot something else.

You're missing the point of my post. I'm saying you can't get value from Killshot unless you have redundant Predators.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 14:57:02


Post by: Martel732


I just explained how you still can. The pred autocannon is really good even without killshot. Use killshot as a threat-in-being.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:01:01


Post by: auticus


With a small tweak to the rules... by sayiing obstacles, buiildings, and forests block line of siight... the LVO tables would be pretty effective I think.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:16:46


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Spam isn't about models on the table but points spent.

So no, 20 tactical marines isn't spam. Its 260 points before weapons/upgrades etc. By contrast 5 Flyrants was... 900 or so (build depending?)

Having one in the list skews it more than the other. Now if you turned up with say 60 tactical marines or something you could accuse them of spam. It would also be rubbish though.

Around 500 points of Dark Reapers is probably borderline on being spam. 30 reapers certainly is. In the same way 3 Russ isn't spam but binging 10 obviously is.

That's not how it works.
Under that logic, I could do 80 Cultists and that's not considered spam because that's only...320 points. 60 Cultists is 240.

It's absolutely how many times the unit entry is being used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
That is more in my line of thinking, that true spam is either significantly high number of repeated units usually 5 or more (a 3 knight army is not something I would call knight spam) and/or a high percentage of the armies points being dedicated to one unit. So yes 5 flyrants at about half of a 2k list is spam, 10 russes would be spam as it is around 2k points, But to me taking the equivalent to around 3 or 4 min units of something is not spam, and something making up about 25% of your army is not what I would define the army by as far as calling it an x spam army. That would be like me taking 4 x 10 tactical marines and people saying “look at that tactical marine spam army”. Said no one ever because there is 1500 points left in the army. Tactical marine spam would be more like 80 marines making up like half the army.

That said if you view 3 or some unit and or 25% of an armies points being put into a single unit type as spam, then as I said you don’t view it the same way as plenty of other people and as such won’t understand what Nick was saying in the article, because essentially you think any redundancy is spam.

Based on how people feel about the FAQ, yes any amount of redundancy is spam.

For example, you would typically run 4 Predators because if you only have 3, the opponent needs to kill just one to get rid of Killshot ever happening. Ever just run two Maulerfiends? It doesn't work so you need three to four of them.

The problem at hand is if nobody cares if you run 7 of those units, which means the issue is unit price.

Essentially, spam is what I'm saying it is, and your definition of spam is "stop running a lot of a unit I don't like". Makes sense?


Except it cannot just be unit entry if you care about 80 cultists. 80 cultists is 2 units. So by your logic it isn't spam because it is only 2 unit entries. Or do the number of models count and 1 unit of 40 cultists is cultist spam. By your definition spam is whatever you say it is rather than being defined by anything you can put into words.

Either 3 of any unit is spam which borders on ridiculous because no one ever calls that out as spam and tons of armies are multiple kinds of spam at once. Or what is being used in repetition has to make up a significant quantity of the army. If we go by the 3 units or more rule 80 cultists isn't spam because it is 2 units, unless I take 4 units of 20 then it is suddenly spam. Or 4 units of 10 is spam but one unit of 40 isn't See how silly a standard that is.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:19:08


Post by: Bharring


Or "spam" is not deterministic.

Words without clear definition aren't useless. "Fun", "annoying", "jerk", "awesome", "well-painted". Likewise, "spam" can be a useful label without an entirely definable meaning.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:21:08


Post by: Breng77


As to things like 2 mauler fiends working that largely depends on the rest of your list. I will say that killshot is harder to pull off with only 3 preds, but for 2 mauler fiends they work just fine so long as there are other targets of same type, so 2 Maulerfiends running along side Magnus, or 2 Blood Thirsters, or 3 Defilers etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:
Or "spam" is not deterministic.

Words without clear definition aren't useless. "Fun", "annoying", "jerk", "awesome", "well-painted". Likewise, "spam" can be a useful label without an entirely definable meaning.


To some extent, though at that point it is in the eye of the beholder and not useful when trying to read meaning into an article regarding spam because the author may view it differently and so the understanding of what the author is trying to say is only meaningful if you apply that same definition.

As such if you think 17 Reapers are spam then the article against spam has no meaning to you because you lack the perspective to understand it and you think the author is a hypocrite. Whereas if you are applying it to mean some larger repetition in unit then the article has value.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:30:52


Post by: Bharring


Breng - I agree that you need to temper your understanding of the use of 'spam' in a post, due to it's definition. Much like you have to temper the use of 'fun'.

If I post about what I think 'fun' list are, or rules that encourage/discourage what I think 'fun' would be, the lack of a solid meaning of 'fun' certainly decreases the value of the statement, but doesn't make it useless.

Onto "The author speaks agains Spam but uses Spam". He's playing a game by the rules as written. He might prefer the rules favored Storm Guardians, but if his goal is to win - and not to field Storm Guardians - his list probably won't have Storm Guardians. If he were to say "and I think Storm Guardians at 2ppm will make them auto-includes", we don't call him a hypocrite because he doesn't field them at 7ppm.

(I would consider 17 Reapers spam-light.)


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:32:16


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Breng77 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Spam isn't about models on the table but points spent.

So no, 20 tactical marines isn't spam. Its 260 points before weapons/upgrades etc. By contrast 5 Flyrants was... 900 or so (build depending?)

Having one in the list skews it more than the other. Now if you turned up with say 60 tactical marines or something you could accuse them of spam. It would also be rubbish though.

Around 500 points of Dark Reapers is probably borderline on being spam. 30 reapers certainly is. In the same way 3 Russ isn't spam but binging 10 obviously is.

That's not how it works.
Under that logic, I could do 80 Cultists and that's not considered spam because that's only...320 points. 60 Cultists is 240.

It's absolutely how many times the unit entry is being used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
That is more in my line of thinking, that true spam is either significantly high number of repeated units usually 5 or more (a 3 knight army is not something I would call knight spam) and/or a high percentage of the armies points being dedicated to one unit. So yes 5 flyrants at about half of a 2k list is spam, 10 russes would be spam as it is around 2k points, But to me taking the equivalent to around 3 or 4 min units of something is not spam, and something making up about 25% of your army is not what I would define the army by as far as calling it an x spam army. That would be like me taking 4 x 10 tactical marines and people saying “look at that tactical marine spam army”. Said no one ever because there is 1500 points left in the army. Tactical marine spam would be more like 80 marines making up like half the army.

That said if you view 3 or some unit and or 25% of an armies points being put into a single unit type as spam, then as I said you don’t view it the same way as plenty of other people and as such won’t understand what Nick was saying in the article, because essentially you think any redundancy is spam.

Based on how people feel about the FAQ, yes any amount of redundancy is spam.

For example, you would typically run 4 Predators because if you only have 3, the opponent needs to kill just one to get rid of Killshot ever happening. Ever just run two Maulerfiends? It doesn't work so you need three to four of them.

The problem at hand is if nobody cares if you run 7 of those units, which means the issue is unit price.

Essentially, spam is what I'm saying it is, and your definition of spam is "stop running a lot of a unit I don't like". Makes sense?


Except it cannot just be unit entry if you care about 80 cultists. 80 cultists is 2 units. So by your logic it isn't spam because it is only 2 unit entries. Or do the number of models count and 1 unit of 40 cultists is cultist spam. By your definition spam is whatever you say it is rather than being defined by anything you can put into words.

Either 3 of any unit is spam which borders on ridiculous because no one ever calls that out as spam and tons of armies are multiple kinds of spam at once. Or what is being used in repetition has to make up a significant quantity of the army. If we go by the 3 units or more rule 80 cultists isn't spam because it is 2 units, unless I take 4 units of 20 then it is suddenly spam. Or 4 units of 10 is spam but one unit of 40 isn't See how silly a standard that is.

80 Cultists can be anywhere from 2 units to 8. 25 Reapers could be 3-5 squads. See the pattern there?

Usually people are talking about MSU. So yeah I could potentially mean 8. I could also mean 5 (which is 16 in a group).

So the only real "spam" is undercosted units, which means those need to be fixed rather than adding a blanket rule.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:34:41


Post by: Breng77


Nah, points will never fix spam, it won't happen because the points cost required to do that makes the unit in question unplayable.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:35:19


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Or "spam" is not deterministic.

Words without clear definition aren't useless. "Fun", "annoying", "jerk", "awesome", "well-painted". Likewise, "spam" can be a useful label without an entirely definable meaning.

Fair enough.

I consider spam to be a unit used in large redundancy, which can be 4 or above. The example of the main unit I spam is Tarantula Sentry Guns as the minimum squads of 1 to meet FA requirements, and I use 5. All in one squad or two they wouldn't be, but as I'm using the unit entry 5x, it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
Nah, points will never fix spam, it won't happen because the points cost required to do that makes the unit in question unplayable.

Yes it can. It's up to GW to not be lazy about it.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:47:05


Post by: Bharring


Lets say War Warlkers were the OP spammed option pre-FAQ. They were fine if you have 3 of them, but OP if you had 4+.

If I build a list with 3 War Walker squads and 3 Wasp squads (basically the same thing with slight variances in rules), is that spam?

Pretend Dev Marines are OP (*PRETEND*).

If I build a list with 3 SM Dev squads, 3 Long Fang squads, 3 BA Dev squads, and 3 DA Dev squads, is that spam?

I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)

Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:47:34


Post by: Galas


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:
Spoiler:


This is Adepticon:
Spoiler:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:
Spoiler:


Ok, now I know why I have 0 problems with gunlines and shooting alpha strike. Our tables have so much terrain that in many cases is even hard for rhinos and other vehicles to move. If you want to hide half your army from the enemy in your first turn, you absolutely can.

For Context, this was me playing agaisnt Tyranids in my first tournament of 8th after jumping back to the hobby:
Spoiler:


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:53:10


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:
Spoiler:


This is Adepticon:
Spoiler:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:
Spoiler:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:56:49


Post by: Sheit27


It's easy to claim "tables should have way more terrain on them!" until you've actually tried running a large event and supplying 500+ pieces of terrain.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 15:59:13


Post by: Audustum


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:
Spoiler:


This is Adepticon:
Spoiler:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:
Spoiler:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


In the defense of TO's, they've gotta get enough terrain to cover a good 50-100 tables, sometimes more. It's hard to get that much consistent terrain to make every table the same and not have certain tables grant an unfair advantage/disadvantage. While I'd love for them to use more terrain, I do sympathize with them immensely on this one.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:06:53


Post by: Pancakey


More Bandages for Bad Rules.

The most balanced edition every guys! Amiright?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:12:12


Post by: Galas


Spoiler:
Audustum wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:


This is Adepticon:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


In the defense of TO's, they've gotta get enough terrain to cover a good 50-100 tables, sometimes more. It's hard to get that much consistent terrain to make every table the same and not have certain tables grant an unfair advantage/disadvantage. While I'd love for them to use more terrain, I do sympathize with them immensely on this one.


I think everyone agrees with that. But the fact is, you can't complaint about the prevalence of shooting alpha strike based in tables that obviously lack the amount of terrain the game should have. We could blame GW for this, because they don't have any indication in the amount of terrain that we should use.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:12:12


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Pancakey wrote:
More Bandages for Bad Rules.

The most balanced edition every guys! Amiright?


Says a lot about prior editions


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:16:19


Post by: Audustum


 Galas wrote:
Spoiler:
Audustum wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:


This is Adepticon:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


In the defense of TO's, they've gotta get enough terrain to cover a good 50-100 tables, sometimes more. It's hard to get that much consistent terrain to make every table the same and not have certain tables grant an unfair advantage/disadvantage. While I'd love for them to use more terrain, I do sympathize with them immensely on this one.


I think everyone agrees with that. But the fact is, you can't complaint about the prevalence of shooting alpha strike based in tables that obviously lack the amount of terrain the game should have. We could blame GW for this, because they don't have any indication in the amount of terrain that we should use.


On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:19:40


Post by: Galas


Audustum wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Spoiler:
Audustum wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:


This is Adepticon:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


In the defense of TO's, they've gotta get enough terrain to cover a good 50-100 tables, sometimes more. It's hard to get that much consistent terrain to make every table the same and not have certain tables grant an unfair advantage/disadvantage. While I'd love for them to use more terrain, I do sympathize with them immensely on this one.


I think everyone agrees with that. But the fact is, you can't complaint about the prevalence of shooting alpha strike based in tables that obviously lack the amount of terrain the game should have. We could blame GW for this, because they don't have any indication in the amount of terrain that we should use.


On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.


But you can even see that Adepticon has much less terrain than LVO, or even NOVA. So even those "Biggest tournaments" have a very big difference in the amount of terrain, even if all of them have less terrain than most LGS, etc... theres not a standard of terrain, and thats a problem. This is a game where terrain is so important to the outcome of a battle, GW should say whats the expected amount of terrain, the one they use to properly balance the game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:19:46


Post by: Galef


Pancakey wrote:
More Bandages for Bad Rules.

The most balanced edition every guys! Amiright?

Just because imbalance exists does not mean the edition is not the most balanced.
I've played 5 editions so far and I have never seen the variety of lists possible than in this editions.
They will always be units that are clearly more efficient than other, but the gap between them is much, MUCH smaller.

And I have also never seen GW respond this quickly to perceived imbalances. 8th is the best edition, and if people still don't like that is their issue and they will likely never be satisfied.

-


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:22:02


Post by: Bharring


The current OP is "Gunline" or "AM or maybe Eldar".

Past OP, at different parts, has been:
-ScatterBikes. Everything else dies.
-SM ObSecSpam. Nothing can clear
-Gladius. So much free.
-Necron Decurion.
-DAVU

In the past, the OP has been one or maybe two things that were currently "the best in the game". Now, it's a class of things of whcih there are a few examples.

It should be more balanced, but it does feel a lot better than it was.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:26:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


Terrain is expensive. Especially when multiplied by 250. The tournament terrain aside from Adepticon is mostly reasonable. Galas' pic has almost no cover for infantry and all LOS blocking.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:33:22


Post by: Crimson


Audustum wrote:

On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.

That's just crazy. Most players do not play in any of these tournaments.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:36:58


Post by: Audustum


 Crimson wrote:
Audustum wrote:

On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.

That's just crazy. Most players do not play in any of these tournaments.


Well, maybe I should say a plurality, but the point is the same. Every garage game has it's own unique setup, so they all each just create a '1' in their own column. Tournaments create hundreds and when you add similar tournaments together they make thousands.

Plus, tournaments all over have been selling out at breakneck speed and in record numbers since 8th launched. People who play in tournaments (note not exclusively, just people who do) might very well be the majority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Spoiler:
Audustum wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.



Indeed Adepticon's terrain had little LOS blocking.

This is LVO:


This is Adepticon:


Nova dictates big LOS blockers:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


In the defense of TO's, they've gotta get enough terrain to cover a good 50-100 tables, sometimes more. It's hard to get that much consistent terrain to make every table the same and not have certain tables grant an unfair advantage/disadvantage. While I'd love for them to use more terrain, I do sympathize with them immensely on this one.


I think everyone agrees with that. But the fact is, you can't complaint about the prevalence of shooting alpha strike based in tables that obviously lack the amount of terrain the game should have. We could blame GW for this, because they don't have any indication in the amount of terrain that we should use.


On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.


But you can even see that Adepticon has much less terrain than LVO, or even NOVA. So even those "Biggest tournaments" have a very big difference in the amount of terrain, even if all of them have less terrain than most LGS, etc... theres not a standard of terrain, and thats a problem. This is a game where terrain is so important to the outcome of a battle, GW should say whats the expected amount of terrain, the one they use to properly balance the game.


Well, I'd say Adepticon is a bit of an odd-duck out, but LVO and NOVA are pretty similar.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:51:00


Post by: Gwarok


 Crimson Devil wrote:
Well his response is certainly less hysterical than what I've been reading on Dakka. So I imagine he'll be ignored.


Lol, exalted.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 16:53:42


Post by: LunarSol


 auticus wrote:
I'm thiinking if proper terrain exiists and not the barren tables that I saw everywhere at Adepticon that gunlines shouldn't have a super easy time at all.

Of course thats a challenge in and of itself: providing proper terrain. And while planet bowling ball is the tournament standard, that is also the expected standard at many FLGS pick up games.


I've definitely noticed how hard it is to make a gunline work on a terrain heavy board. A lot of times the problem I see is that a good terrain heavy board is designed to be a city, and the mat or something with a square road grid that make the movement lanes board length firing lanes. Mat makers really need to get to using diagonal roads, which set up blocking terrain a lot better. Players also need to stop making buildings with windows. It essentially ruins the terrain. I have yet to play a game that doesn't need the terrain designed for its particular quirks, but for some reason 40k tables never seem to have terrain that's built for the game's rules. 8th Edition in particular really seems to want an area of rubble around every piece, which is something I've only gotten to properly play on once.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:08:19


Post by: Crimson


 LunarSol wrote:

I've definitely noticed how hard it is to make a gunline work on a terrain heavy board. A lot of times the problem I see is that a good terrain heavy board is designed to be a city, and the mat or something with a square road grid that make the movement lanes board length firing lanes. Mat makers really need to get to using diagonal roads, which set up blocking terrain a lot better. Players also need to stop making buildings with windows. It essentially ruins the terrain. I have yet to play a game that doesn't need the terrain designed for its particular quirks, but for some reason 40k tables never seem to have terrain that's built for the game's rules. 8th Edition in particular really seems to want an area of rubble around every piece, which is something I've only gotten to properly play on once.

Sure, but this is really mainly GW's fault. Most of the terrain they actually sell doesn't really work well with the rules of their game. The terrain is full of holes and they don't have bases.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:09:45


Post by: Galas


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


Terrain is expensive. Especially when multiplied by 250. The tournament terrain aside from Adepticon is mostly reasonable. Galas' pic has almost no cover for infantry and all LOS blocking.


Well, if a unit was touching a building or on top of one it counted as terrain, but yeah, that specific table was mostly LOS blocking terrain. We have other tables where the terrain and buildings is on top of a "base", so it has rubble, etc... for cover around the LOS blocking piece.

But theres no better cover that being out of vision of your opponent


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:10:27


Post by: Breng77


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
Or "spam" is not deterministic.

Words without clear definition aren't useless. "Fun", "annoying", "jerk", "awesome", "well-painted". Likewise, "spam" can be a useful label without an entirely definable meaning.

Fair enough.

I consider spam to be a unit used in large redundancy, which can be 4 or above. The example of the main unit I spam is Tarantula Sentry Guns as the minimum squads of 1 to meet FA requirements, and I use 5. All in one squad or two they wouldn't be, but as I'm using the unit entry 5x, it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
Nah, points will never fix spam, it won't happen because the points cost required to do that makes the unit in question unplayable.

Yes it can. It's up to GW to not be lazy about it.


Points on their own can never be enough to fix spam. You need some other mechanism in place, whether that is limits on units, limits on slots, or increasing points costs for multiples of the same unit, or make every unit synergistic and depend on other units to function. Points are literally incapable of fixing spam. Lets say their is an ideal world where every unit is balanced to every other unit perfectly by points (super unrealistic), that environment may not encourage spam but it hardly prevents it and as such skew lists will appear, and will dominate some games and get dominated in others dependent on what else is being run. The only way to prevent a unit from being spammed is to make it not worth taking, if it is worth its points someone will spam it. Now in a perfect balanced game that may not be a huge issue because not everyone will take it people might spam different things so the meta is not dominated by one style of list, but spam would still exist. Given that the game will never see perfect balance (it is near impossible as it stands) some units will always be better than others, with no restrictions those units will get spammed. The only way to stop those units from being spammed is to increase their points to the point that they are no longer good for their points, at which point no one takes them, instead they take whatever has become the better option in the absence of the option removed from the meta. Restriction allows for the inevitability that some units will be better than others, while making it impossible to spam those units beyond a certain point. Put simply one flyrant is pretty balanced at it's current point cost due to its relative lack of durability when on its own. Throw in 6 more and suddenly it is a problem because handling that many is problematic. That is true for almost any unit.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:11:00


Post by: the_scotsman


Bharring wrote:
The current OP is "Gunline" or "AM or maybe Eldar".

Past OP, at different parts, has been:
-ScatterBikes. Everything else dies.
-SM ObSecSpam. Nothing can clear
-Gladius. So much free.
-Necron Decurion.
-DAVU

In the past, the OP has been one or maybe two things that were currently "the best in the game". Now, it's a class of things of whcih there are a few examples.

It should be more balanced, but it does feel a lot better than it was.


Only if you view it from the most absolutely simplistic point of view possible.

Guard/Tau pure gunlines will be strong - but so will the things that naturally counter them, like fast assault lists featuring stuff like the new dark eldar wyches (which can still pull off a really easy charge turn 1, have vehicles that are highly points efficient when getting shot by lascannons, and have an actual answer to screens in 8th due to the fact that once you're in combat with them, you stay there until the wyches shred through you), genestealer cult, Stygies and Raven Guard -1 to hit lists to abuse the BS4+. That, in turn, will lead the gunlines to diversify with allied troops like custodes bikers, blood angels, maybe some stygies Ironstriders, which allows them to counter the fast assault lists and gives them a fast assault element in the mirror matchup vs a pure gunline. Suddenly, they become...not a pure gunline anymore. See how that works?



FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:15:07


Post by: greyknight12


The thing that used to counter gunlines was turn 1 deepstrike


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:19:17


Post by: Galas


 greyknight12 wrote:
The thing that used to counter gunlines was turn 1 deepstrike


Yeah because turn 1 deepstrike both meele and shooting variants werent used equally to destroy TAC list without a chance to react.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:28:49


Post by: Tyel


Bharring wrote:
I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)

Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?


I stand by points and I don't see how it can be viewed differently.
Certainly the idea that 5 units of 1 Tarantula is spam but 1 unit of 5 Tarantulas isn't makes no sense to me.

The problem is spam is that it creates gimmicky skewed lists - which are typically point and click to play and not much to play against (as you either have an answer or you don't - with good ones, you don't.)

If you had a rock/paper/scissors balance system its going all paper. Theoretically you are going to get stomped on by lists with more scissors - but you are going to stomp on lists with a lot of rock.
But 40k doesn't really have a rock/paper/scissors balancing system. It has over and under costed units measured by what they can do for their points cost.
And the aim of the game is to take as many undercosted units as possible.

The major in game skill in 40k is getting the right units into the right units. In a game with two TAC lists this can be skilful.
I think a lot of people - including GW - want this to be valued.
With a skew it often isn't. If I break out 7 hive tyrants, 4 trygons etc and your army just can't cope - and many armies can't - then it isn't good play on my part.

Or say you could go the other way and just take 400~ guardsmen to sit on objectives, confident a lot of armies can't handle that many guardsmen in 5 turns.
It isn't really a game at that point - its just list building. The critique can be levelled at pox walker farm (which is dead now too). Its fun for the Johnny's of list building to think up - but it doesn't result (IMO anyway) in fun interactive games where both players are making meaningful choices.

=====

On the terrain argument - most people don't play in tournaments. But I think people overwhelmingly play on tables that look like those. Most people do not have hundreds of pounds worth of LOS blocking terrain features on their tables - whether they play at tournaments, at clubs or at home.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:32:24


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


Oh good lord. No wonder the tournament meta is in the state its in. Our group plays with easily double that amount of terrain.


Terrain is expensive.


I watched Ireland's Warmachine community of about 20ish serious player host the WTC a few years back and only a handful actual took part in the organisation.

If a bunch of drunken Irishmen can organise enough terrain, tables, chess clocks, game mats, objective markers and streaming equipment for 175 tables then I have to wonder why its so difficult for an outfit with far more resources and manpower.

It's also a lie since tutorials for making cheap terrain are abundant. Not every table needs to look like it lept from a GW spread and be adorned with Official GW Terrain.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:33:27


Post by: Lemondish


 greyknight12 wrote:
The thing that used to counter gunlines was turn 1 deepstrike


Turn 1 deep strike countered everything

Now you'll have to build better to counter gunlines by using mobility to effectively redeploy quickly, and gunlines will need to mitigate that by diversifying their list away from being a pure gunline. I mean, that'll be what is likely to happen in the long term.

In the short term, people will flail against gunline armies and complain about it nonstop until smarter, more capable, more thoughtful players in the tournament scene come up with the right tools and lists to counter it.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:37:54


Post by: Reemule


 Crimson wrote:
Audustum wrote:

On the other hand, I could just as easily say that this is the terrain format for the biggest tournaments with the most players, so it's hitting the most people. If the game should be balanced around any type of table, it should be that one.

That's just crazy. Most players do not play in any of these tournaments.


Prove to us what terrain most people do play on then?


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:38:00


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Lets say War Warlkers were the OP spammed option pre-FAQ. They were fine if you have 3 of them, but OP if you had 4+.

If I build a list with 3 War Walker squads and 3 Wasp squads (basically the same thing with slight variances in rules), is that spam?

Pretend Dev Marines are OP (*PRETEND*).

If I build a list with 3 SM Dev squads, 3 Long Fang squads, 3 BA Dev squads, and 3 DA Dev squads, is that spam?

I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)

Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?

The SM, DA, and BA would be spam to me (as they're all the same besides Chapter Tactics and Blood Angels having Heavy Flamers I believe), but Long Fangs are completely different so Long Fangs wouldn't be part of the spam. With the current FAQ, they bypass it on a technicality. So the question is how okay are people with that?

Wasps with Walkers wouldn't count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Bharring wrote:
I've frequently called my lists 'Aspect Spam'. They have frequently been called 'Exarch Spam'. The only duplicated entry is 2-4 DA units. But that is a form of spam. (I'd like to think it fits as 'fun' spam.)

Just how different do things need to be to not be considered 'Spam'?


I stand by points and I don't see how it can be viewed differently.
Certainly the idea that 5 units of 1 Tarantula is spam but 1 unit of 5 Tarantulas isn't makes no sense to me.

The problem is spam is that it creates gimmicky skewed lists - which are typically point and click to play and not much to play against (as you either have an answer or you don't - with good ones, you don't.)

If you had a rock/paper/scissors balance system its going all paper. Theoretically you are going to get stomped on by lists with more scissors - but you are going to stomp on lists with a lot of rock.
But 40k doesn't really have a rock/paper/scissors balancing system. It has over and under costed units measured by what they can do for their points cost.
And the aim of the game is to take as many undercosted units as possible.

The major in game skill in 40k is getting the right units into the right units. In a game with two TAC lists this can be skilful.
I think a lot of people - including GW - want this to be valued.
With a skew it often isn't. If I break out 7 hive tyrants, 4 trygons etc and your army just can't cope - and many armies can't - then it isn't good play on my part.

Or say you could go the other way and just take 400~ guardsmen to sit on objectives, confident a lot of armies can't handle that many guardsmen in 5 turns.
It isn't really a game at that point - its just list building. The critique can be levelled at pox walker farm (which is dead now too). Its fun for the Johnny's of list building to think up - but it doesn't result (IMO anyway) in fun interactive games where both players are making meaningful choices.

=====

On the terrain argument - most people don't play in tournaments. But I think people overwhelmingly play on tables that look like those. Most people do not have hundreds of pounds worth of LOS blocking terrain features on their tables - whether they play at tournaments, at clubs or at home.

It can't be by points though.

3-4 Imperial Knights would make it a Knight spam list just by that definition, but even just 2 would qualify in anything under 2000 points.
6 Scout Squads won't qualify in your definition either, as that's only 330 points with no upgrades (and even with upgrades like Combi-Plasma that is less than 400, which is less than 25% Of a 2000 point list).

Compare to my definition where I use one of my lists as an example. Taratula Sentry Guns need to be deployed together if they're in the same unit. I take them all separately to take up space in my deployment area for cheap all while being a super cheap TL Heavy Bolter.

The I'm using it in this case for all those purposes would be me spamming the unit entry, even if it isn't the singular greatest choice in the world (though I do say it's the single best FA choice in the Space Marine codex).


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 17:57:49


Post by: Asmodios


Lemondish wrote:
 greyknight12 wrote:
The thing that used to counter gunlines was turn 1 deepstrike


Turn 1 deep strike countered everything

Now you'll have to build better to counter gunlines by using mobility to effectively redeploy quickly, and gunlines will need to mitigate that by diversifying their list away from being a pure gunline. I mean, that'll be what is likely to happen in the long term.

In the short term, people will flail against gunline armies and complain about it nonstop until smarter, more capable, more thoughtful players in the tournament scene come up with the right tools and lists to counter it.

This is exactly what will happen and funny enough exactly what the current ITC and LVO champion said in his article. The immediate reaction will be lots of uncreative people who copy tournament champs lists having no clue what to do, playing exactly like they did before and getting slaughtered by gunlines like Guard and Tau. In a couple months, these people will all settle down because they will start taking what top tournament players take and catching up to the new meta. Then the next FAQ/Chapter Approved will drop and we will get to see Dakka meltdown again. Rinse and repeat 2 times a year from now on.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:08:23


Post by: gbghg


How about we, rather than try and come up with some cookie cutter definition of the term, acknowledge that context is a thing and that the definition of spam can vary from army to army and from role slot to role slo?. I play IG, if i took 6 infantry squads i wouldn't regard it as spam, if however i took 6 HWT's/leman russes/basilisks i would consider that to very much be edging into if not already in spam territory.

the context of the army being played, the role the unit sits in, and how much they cost all matter, i doubt you'll really find a one size fits for all definition of spam, GW's rule of 3 feels right for manticores for example but pretty bad for HWT's.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:10:06


Post by: Marmatag


GW should publish a guideline for how much terrain there should be. Because by in large the terrain on these tables is pitiful.

And seriously. If you can't run a tournament with even a modicum of LOS blocking terrain, that's on you, no one is forcing you to organize a for-profit event.




FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:17:22


Post by: Crimson


I read the second part. I'm not sure I share his optimist about fast melee armies being able to threaten gunlines and thus force a meta shift. I hope he is right, though.

Still, he seems to think that marines are basically fethed. On that, he is probably right...

SM/DA- Well, the only success these guys seemed to be having on the highest levels of competition seemed to be spamming fliers, and now that’s gone. I’m not sure if these have a place as more than just an ally unfortunately.

Considering how many marine players there are, this is exactly not an ideal state of affairs...


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:17:48


Post by: auticus


Thats the thing. In any wargame, the terrain should be variable.

Some tables its ok to have little terrain.

Some tables should have a lot.

Some tables have a moderate amount.

Not every game should be played on the same degree of terrain IMO.

However iif you are buildiing for unforseen terrain where you COULD end up on heavy terrain table you'd definitely be discouraged from showing up with a skew gunline.

Same if terrain was used iin conjunction with scatter on deep strike. People would have to take that into consideratiion.

Now its a no brainer. Why would you never do it? Before there was no reason to not show up wiith a turn 1 deep striike tabling of your opponent or gunline.

These are things that to me kill the game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:24:16


Post by: Nevermind


 mokoshkana wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
It was discussed.


I'll watch it again, but his point was that it's durable, but will sacrifice too much damage.

It depends on the rest of one's list. Lawrence from TTT played Eldar in a tournament with a farseer, 3x Hemlocks, and 5x Wave Serpents in order to spam Mortal Wounds. He won the event while playing no dark reapers of shining spears...


It was at an invitational that was not overly competitive. It was a good win, though. He took the same list to LVO and went 4-2.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:35:18


Post by: Tyel


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It can't be by points though.

3-4 Imperial Knights would make it a Knight spam list just by that definition, but even just 2 would qualify in anything under 2000 points.
6 Scout Squads won't qualify in your definition either, as that's only 330 points with no upgrades (and even with upgrades like Combi-Plasma that is less than 400, which is less than 25% Of a 2000 point list).

Compare to my definition where I use one of my lists as an example. Taratula Sentry Guns need to be deployed together if they're in the same unit. I take them all separately to take up space in my deployment area for cheap all while being a super cheap TL Heavy Bolter.

The I'm using it in this case for all those purposes would be me spamming the unit entry, even if it isn't the singular greatest choice in the world (though I do say it's the single best FA choice in the Space Marine codex).


Well this is why I think Knights are a bad idea. You can't really have a balanced list when you are a small number of vehicles.
This means its very easy to get bad games - where from the lists you know what the result is going to be. (Currently also knights kind of suck.)

But 30 scouts are not having any impact on the game. If you take them its about 15% of your list. Which means you have 85% of your list in other things.
Same with 80 cultists - its a tool, but not the whole list.

Now if you turned up with 100 scouts or 200 cultists it would be different.

The more skewed your list is (typically via spam) the more you place list building over in game decision making. I don't think this is good for the game.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:53:14


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Tyel wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It can't be by points though.

3-4 Imperial Knights would make it a Knight spam list just by that definition, but even just 2 would qualify in anything under 2000 points.
6 Scout Squads won't qualify in your definition either, as that's only 330 points with no upgrades (and even with upgrades like Combi-Plasma that is less than 400, which is less than 25% Of a 2000 point list).

Compare to my definition where I use one of my lists as an example. Taratula Sentry Guns need to be deployed together if they're in the same unit. I take them all separately to take up space in my deployment area for cheap all while being a super cheap TL Heavy Bolter.

The I'm using it in this case for all those purposes would be me spamming the unit entry, even if it isn't the singular greatest choice in the world (though I do say it's the single best FA choice in the Space Marine codex).


Well this is why I think Knights are a bad idea. You can't really have a balanced list when you are a small number of vehicles.
This means its very easy to get bad games - where from the lists you know what the result is going to be. (Currently also knights kind of suck.)

But 30 scouts are not having any impact on the game. If you take them its about 15% of your list. Which means you have 85% of your list in other things.
Same with 80 cultists - its a tool, but not the whole list.

Now if you turned up with 100 scouts or 200 cultists it would be different.

The more skewed your list is (typically via spam) the more you place list building over in game decision making. I don't think this is good for the game.

What about just 100 Cultists instead? That's only 400 points, or 20% of a list, yet still a considerable number of models.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 18:53:55


Post by: Galas


How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.

20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 19:02:39


Post by: kodos


 Marmatag wrote:
GW should publish a guideline for how much terrain there should be.


How much is not the problem, but how it looks like

GW's own terrain was designed for a different set of rules, it does not work with the current game
so even if your table is full with GW ruins it won't change much

the game needs more terrain, but it also needs advanced terrain rules that are appropriate for a shooting heavy game
it is not only that we miss the 3" vertical combat range (in addition to 1" horizontal) or that every model and the game would need to have a base (a Rhino can attack models in the first floor a Trygon can not) but stuff like "ground floor (3" high) is always blocking LOS no matter if True Line of Sight is block or not (use this for any kind of buildings or wood)


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 19:06:39


Post by: Crimson Devil


I don't think GW designs terrain with rules in mind at all. The box size probably has a bigger affect on the terrain piece than the rules do.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 19:09:38


Post by: Sim-Life


 Crimson Devil wrote:
I don't think GW designs terrain with rules in mind at all. The box size probably has a bigger affect on the terrain piece than the rules do.


I think GW design(ed) terrain to look good first and to be practical for the game second.

Remember a lot of it like the Administratum Ruins was sculpted when Kirby was insisting they they were a miniatures company, not a game company. The more recent stuff works far better for its intended purpose.


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 19:13:26


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Galas wrote:
How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.

20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.

It actually is, because some people wanted hard limits because of "spam".


FAQ Analysis from LVO winner @ 2018/04/19 19:20:37


Post by: Tyel


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
How is 100 of a horde unit spam? They are horde for a reason.

20 custodes guardian is more spam than 90 ork boyz. Wich makes clear that the definition of spam is 100% subjetive and for that reason useless. One can put a hard limit based in whatever reason he wants, normally to try to achieve balance. But what constitutes spam isn't actually productive to that conversation.

It actually is, because some people wanted hard limits because of "spam".


They want hard limits because of skews - not spam in and of itself.

Its bizarre to claim 6 units of 5 Marines is the same issue as 6 Flyrants.
Or 5-6 Plagueburst Crawlers.
Etc.
They are not the same.

If you have 500 points of A, 500 points of B, 500 points of C and 500 points of D then for me at least that almost certainly isn't a spam list - even if it means you have 120 cultists or 50 naked tactical marines or whatever.