Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

Well, my former policy was to buy all codices.
But now I'm just buying the codices of the armies that I'm playing.
I have a GK army but lucky me I havent bought the GK codex and I will not.
It seems to be the worst in town.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

There are some more things... like the extra T Plague Marines get and the various weapon choices. Even tho DG players mention that Plague Marines aren't that good aswell. Gauss and RP just need a rework or big buffs , right now Necrons only work halftime against braindead opponents or straight up bad players.

I've been doing really well with an iron hand dreadbaught list lately. Regular dreads are too slow and not durable enough for points but contemptors are good. 3 contemptors + 2 ironclads and some support in 1250 games have been decent enough to win even vs anti-tech lists.

As for necrons, infantry spam is really good in small games. The moment you go big, rp stops working and you're better off spending pts in doomsday arks, destroyers and probably ctans and stuff like that.

low tier list?
GK. So much pts invested in so little damage output and durability.
Necrons. Better off then GK still quite overpriced.

As for SM/CSM
I think there are some keyunits, that are the fluff centerpiece that just don't cut it no more. Tac marines are not tactical, they are one trick ponies that suffer as soon as AP comes into play.
Terminators just are not worth ther 30-40 pts price range.

Also additionally why would you bother with Tac marines / regular CSM when you can fill troop taxes with an IG detachment or Cultists, which do the min cost min tax way better and have better stratagems to support them?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

phydaux wrote:
My intention wasn't to give Space Marines players another chance to cry, but to see if there were other armies that got the GK treatment.

I've heard that every Coxes after Astra Mil was OK. So what codeses were before Astra Mil?

the dexes pre-IG are Space Marines, Death Guard and chaos space marines. none of which are complete crap.

Death Guard and CSM are literally already showing signs of aging. Did you know there are already people asking for a price cut on frickin Plague Marines because they're just not durable enough against the newer codices? It's ridiculous!

The problem is that durability factions get their baseline toughness and nothing else, while glass cannon factions have fragile datasheets that get buffed until those glass cannons are surrounded by an adamantine fortress.

If Death Guard and Necrons got half as many defensive buffs as Craftworld Eldar do they'd be a hell of a lot harder to remove, I can tell you that.

Yeah, which pretty much proves that GW can't balance gak.
You can't call an army a glass cannon if it can pull so many defensive buffs out of its ass that the glass becomes diamond.

Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

Immortals need their T5 back and warriors need 3+ again.
They're just copying 5th ed statlines, and its not working.
They also need to rework the dynasty traits so that every faction can be used independently. I hate this new design concept where you need to soup in order to make an effective force. Its just more book keeping and tedium, as you have to keep track of what unit goes where, and if you paint them differently then your army doesn't look like a coherent force anymore. It ruins the aesthetic of the army.

QS needs to be more reliable too. On paper its strong, but in practice its highly unreliable, as you not only have to roll low, you have to hope your opponent rolls high too. I could see it working much better with set damage values, but with random damage values there's too much variance for it to be effective. I would much rather have it ignore a single unsaved wounding hit from an enemy unit's shooting.
As in, if a lascannon shot gets through and it deals 6 damage, it does nothing. If two lascannon shots from the same unit gets through and both deals 6 damage, then the vehicle takes 6 damage. If 2 lascannon shots from two different units get through, the vehicle ignores both.

Also, translocation crypt needs be a universal necron stratagem and not faction locked, because it makes no sense that only the Nephrekh would have that tech when its been established that necrons in general are capable of teleporting shenanigans.
The necron codex just isn't well designed. You can tell it wasn't designed by a necron fan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

Sometimes it is overpowered though.

See : Wave serpent energy field from 5th ed.
Or scat laser spam in 6th.
Or constant psy power buffs.
Really, Eldar are bs in general.

Like really really bad? Only GK really.

But anything that isn't some flavor of Eldar or Guard is pretty underwhelming.

Most codexes only have 1 good unit so the rule of 3 kills about 3/4ths of the field and most 'pure' faction lists outright.

Grey Knights are the only "bad" codex. Every other codex in some form is "good", even if its a few options in a soup list, every other codex is reasonably represented.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

I thought we were crying about Brigitte these days, did I miss a memo?

 gmaleron wrote:
Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

At the cost of a disproportionate amount of resources in a way that's only going to work the first time your opponent sees it.

The number of times I see people say 'oh this unit can be played around, so it's not OP!' is exhausting. OP means 'Over-powered'. As in 'Overly Powerful' I have no idea where this idea of it meaning 'Instant win' came from. Yes you can beat these units but the problem is it's more difficult for you to beat them than it is for them to beat you.

Then you see people talk about 'tactical counters' or however you want to phrase it like they're a magic spell you can cast and suddenly the unit isn't a threat anymore. Your opponent is just as capable of coming up with a counter to your counter as you are of coming up with a counter in the first place. So yes, you end up in a better spot than you would be if you just let them run roughshod over you but you're still at a disadvantage.

The issue with 40k is that it isn't really a counter-based system, beyond a broad meta consideration. It might be if you just play a small group of friends over and over again, but that generally isn't what people are describing.

I am really struggling to think of any meta evolution in 40k that hasn't been led by GW adding/changing units.

40k is about opportunity and probability for a certain points investment.

Forums tend to act as if there is cast iron certainty. "Grey Knights can never win a game". This is rubbish - of course they can. They do so all over the globe.

The issue is however to be top tier you need to be able to go a tournament and win 5 games in a row - preferably 20:0. Are you going to manage that as Grey Knights? No. You might get one game where everything goes your way - and your opponent can't stop rolling 1s - but its incredibly unlikely you will get 5.

By contrast an Eldar soup is powerful. Probability is on your side. Rather than thinking "I need hot dice to kill X" you are in the position of "I'd need to totally fluff this role to screw it up." This will happen too - if you play enough you will see Eldar shooting fail, psychic fail, charges fail etc. Meanwhile you keep rolling 6s to hit so all those -1s to hit might as well not be there. The odds of this happening is however low. Net result - you get a lot of these sorts of armies (and the other competitive builds) placing well in tournaments.

ERJAK wrote:


At the cost of a disproportionate amount of resources in a way that's only going to work the first time your opponent sees it.

The number of times I see people say 'oh this unit can be played around, so it's not OP!' is exhausting. OP means 'Over-powered'. As in 'Overly Powerful' I have no idea where this idea of it meaning 'Instant win' came from. Yes you can beat these units but the problem is it's more difficult for you to beat them than it is for them to beat you.

Then you see people talk about 'tactical counters' or however you want to phrase it like they're a magic spell you can cast and suddenly the unit isn't a threat anymore. Your opponent is just as capable of coming up with a counter to your counter as you are of coming up with a counter in the first place. So yes, you end up in a better spot than you would be if you just let them run roughshod over you but you're still at a disadvantage.

End of the day it's still a cop out, and in my mind it's bit of an excuse to justify why you cannot either perform well and/or beat a particular army or struggling with a particular unit. And guess what forcing them to make counters to your counter is actually a good thing, it means you're actually learning different ways to go about playing the game instead of relying on the same cookie cutter list over and over again.

BA are reduced to a 2-unit codex. Scouts and captains. I guess its better than Admech just stealing our pods.

Martel732 wrote:
BA are reduced to a 2-unit codex. Scouts and captains. I guess its better than Admech just stealing our pods.

Just because those are the best units to ally into another army doesn’t mean the rest of the codex doesn’t exist. There continue to be people playing pure BA and doing fairly well (X-1 and X-2) in tournaments despite this being an era where pure armies are way outclassed.

Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

Immortals need their T5 back and warriors need 3+ again.
They're just copying 5th ed statlines, and its not working.
They also need to rework the dynasty traits so that every faction can be used independently. I hate this new design concept where you need to soup in order to make an effective force. Its just more book keeping and tedium, as you have to keep track of what unit goes where, and if you paint them differently then your army doesn't look like a coherent force anymore. It ruins the aesthetic of the army.

QS needs to be more reliable too. On paper its strong, but in practice its highly unreliable, as you not only have to roll low, you have to hope your opponent rolls high too. I could see it working much better with set damage values, but with random damage values there's too much variance for it to be effective. I would much rather have it ignore a single unsaved wounding hit from an enemy unit's shooting.
As in, if a lascannon shot gets through and it deals 6 damage, it does nothing. If two lascannon shots from the same unit gets through and both deals 6 damage, then the vehicle takes 6 damage. If 2 lascannon shots from two different units get through, the vehicle ignores both.

Also, translocation crypt needs be a universal necron stratagem and not faction locked, because it makes no sense that only the Nephrekh would have that tech when its been established that necrons in general are capable of teleporting shenanigans.
The necron codex just isn't well designed. You can tell it wasn't designed by a necron fan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

Sometimes it is overpowered though.

See : Wave serpent energy field from 5th ed.
Or scat laser spam in 6th.
Or constant psy power buffs.
Really, Eldar are bs in general.

I feel like the Necron codex WAS designed by someone who likes Necrons, but that person wasn't able to entirely balance well. Some of the stuff in there IS pretty cool, but we price adjustments across the board overall, and the Nephrekh Stratagem really should've been generic.

I'm no hardcore competitive player and I'm not going to argue that the Necron codex doesn't need some tweaking but I really feel a lot of people are currently playing the army wrong and trying to force it to work in a way that is currently sub-optimal.

For instance; our troops and HQ choices are overcosted/bad? Then stop taking so many of them! We don't even need battallions because we're not actually a CP heavy army.

But no, people keep spending 600-800 points on battalions which then do nothing and refuse to rely on the actual good tools at our disposal.

It's Grey Knights. At least the other armies have a way to win.

Grey Knights might have had a value add to soup until Custodes came out, and the daemon stratagem came out.

Their codex is downright bad.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I'm no hardcore competitive player and I'm not going to argue that the Necron codex doesn't need some tweaking but I really feel a lot of people are currently playing the army wrong and trying to force it to work in a way that is currently sub-optimal.

For instance; our troops and HQ choices are overcosted/bad? Then stop taking so many of them! We don't even need battallions because we're not actually a CP heavy army.

But no, people keep spending 600-800 points on battalions which then do nothing and refuse to rely on the actual good tools at our disposal.

I can tell you don't really play Necrons much. They're a very heavy CP army.

Darsath wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I'm no hardcore competitive player and I'm not going to argue that the Necron codex doesn't need some tweaking but I really feel a lot of people are currently playing the army wrong and trying to force it to work in a way that is currently sub-optimal.

For instance; our troops and HQ choices are overcosted/bad? Then stop taking so many of them! We don't even need battallions because we're not actually a CP heavy army.

But no, people keep spending 600-800 points on battalions which then do nothing and refuse to rely on the actual good tools at our disposal.

I can tell you don't really play Necrons much. They're a very heavy CP army.

I've been playing them solidly for months and came 5th in a local tourney recently but ok m8. Aside from the one game I dropped at the tourney I've won my last 10 games too, often going into turn 5 or 6 with a spare CP left over after only having started with 5.

What are you spending your CP on other than Extermination Protocols?

hobojebus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

I thought we were crying about Brigitte these days, did I miss a memo?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a Heroes of the Storm player, I probably could have been more clear on that.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

I thought we were crying about Brigitte these days, did I miss a memo?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a Heroes of the Storm player, I probably could have been more clear on that.

Tracer eh? Nont really on the same level of Genji in HotS breaking through walls

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't think I've ever played an edition where people were happy with space marines. Space Marines could be better but they're not BAD.

I have. The transition from 3rd to 4th saw vanilla Marines drop from 30 points to 15 with no appreciable difference in capability. Nobody else came even remotely close to that big of a points drop, and MEQs were the armies to beat. All the complaints were from non-MEQ players about how borked 3+ armor saves were with how AP worked in 4th. Only CSMs and 'crons gave loyalist marines a hard time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

phydaux wrote:
as a loyalist Marines player I've always had Chaos Envy. It just seems like they get so many cool toys & options that loyalists don't get.

This has got to be satire

Or leftover preconceptions from earlier editions. I was busy with Warmachine/Hordes when 5th, 6th, and 7th were out so I can't speak for them, but in 3rd and 4th CSMs kicked loyalists up and down the field all day long. And what current Death Guard can field compaired to my Ravens for the same points gives me tbe envies too.

Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

Well I would say CSM were at their worst in 6th, where they were stuck with 1 good unit (Heldrakes) and two mediocre ones (Obliterators and Termicide).

Granted I ought to give more credit to Lords and Sorcerers.

7th was a little better when we got more detachments to use (so basically even more Termicide and Heldrakes with the simple Cultist tax) and the HQ's doing their thing of sorts, and then the Legions codex came out and, while not terribly well balanced as per usual, it gave the fluff top notch justice.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

depends on what grabs your intreast I suppose. If you really like Obliterators but don't care much for land raider crusaders.. say

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

It's possible they meant model envy? Sure, the loyalist models are all totally up to date, but while the loyalists were getting the tenth new tactical marine model CSM were getting cool gak like the heldrake.

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

LVO 2018 - top 8 consisted of 4 eldar lists, 3 Imperial lists containing varying amounts of Blood Angels, and one chaos list.
IIRC the 9th and 10th place lists were also mixed imperial/blood angel armies.

A few more books and no more first turn assaults now, but it's not as if anything drastic has happened since the LVO to give other factions a big leg up over the BA beyond those that have moved away from their index rules.

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

LVO 2018 - top 8 consisted of 4 eldar lists, 3 Imperial lists containing varying amounts of Blood Angels, and one chaos list.
IIRC the 9th and 10th place lists were also mixed imperial/blood angel armies.

A few more books and no more first turn assaults now, but it's not as if anything drastic has happened since the LVO to give other factions a big leg up over the BA beyond those that have moved away from their index rules.

Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

It's possible they meant model envy? Sure, the loyalist models are all totally up to date, but while the loyalists were getting the tenth new tactical marine model CSM were getting cool gak like the heldrake.

context of the post was in direct response to someone talking about the strength of the dexes, so while I could almost understand model envy he is most definitely talking about unit strength unfortunately.



That being said, I'm not even sure I can agree with CSM getting all the good gak MODEL WISE. Loyalists have double the amount of entries for sale as CSM, and look at the state of some of of CSM's CURRENT range lol. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Chaos-Space-Marines-Khorne-Berzerkers so much other garbage their too for just baseline units.

Hey, CSM is one of my armies, I'm fully aware how old and bad a lot of the CSM infantry models are. My point is A) largely in jest and B) that while SM gets a mountain of releases they're all boring as hell and not nearly as good as the few things Chaos does end up getting, lol.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Hey, CSM is one of my armies, I'm fully aware how old and bad a lot of the CSM infantry models are. My point is A) largely in jest and B) that while SM gets a mountain of releases they're all boring as hell and not nearly as good as the few things Chaos does end up getting, lol.

Centurions was in their last release and ended up being a top 3 threat in the meta

This one brought Primaris right, and that's some of their dexes best units



Loyalists get plenty of dope gak CSM doesn't, and vice versa. They are different armies, I'm jealous of gak from every army, everyone has their cool gak

My point literally has nothing to do with effectiveness on the tabletop, I'm only talking about the coolness of the models here. CSM gets some really interesting and visually appealing models; Raptors, Rubric Marines, the aforementioned Heldrake... Loyalists get... dreadnoughts? Yeah, the basic, blocky dreadnought is cool. Other than that... eh.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
My point literally has nothing to do with effectiveness on the tabletop, I'm only talking about the coolness of the models here. CSM gets some really interesting and visually appealing models; Raptors, Rubric Marines, the aforementioned Heldrake... Loyalists get... dreadnoughts? Yeah, the basic, blocky dreadnought is cool. Other than that... eh.

Legion of the Damned is cool.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
My point literally has nothing to do with effectiveness on the tabletop, I'm only talking about the coolness of the models here. CSM gets some really interesting and visually appealing models; Raptors, Rubric Marines, the aforementioned Heldrake... Loyalists get... dreadnoughts? Yeah, the basic, blocky dreadnought is cool. Other than that... eh.

Interesting most people I know, either put focus on efficiency only or they like the sleak renegade stuff without those crazy horns, mutations etc. People play different csm chapters here, but all of them look like IW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

Well I would say CSM were at their worst in 6th, where they were stuck with 1 good unit (Heldrakes) and two mediocre ones (Obliterators and Termicide).

Granted I ought to give more credit to Lords and Sorcerers.

7th was a little better when we got more detachments to use (so basically even more Termicide and Heldrakes with the simple Cultist tax) and the HQ's doing their thing of sorts, and then the Legions codex came out and, while not terribly well balanced as per usual, it gave the fluff top notch justice.

The Legions book was great, I was a little sorry not to have done anything with that before 8 dropped.

In comparison the 8th ed codex feels a little flat. I'm still disappointed that marks of the different gods are nothing more than a keyword with no flavour to them. Having them literally doesn't matter at all, other than needing to tick a box to say 'yes this has mark of khorne' on everything to make a World Eaters detachment.

Each codex has its own issues the real power difference comes from how can you build around those weakness.
Some codex's can build to cover their own weaknesses and others can't do anything about their weaknesses.

Some codex bring too little good to the table to outweigh the bad ecen in soup lists, the worst example being GK

Marines have a poor codex being carried by some crutch builds.

Crons got a few places abusing some units but arn't going to rewrite the meta, basically marines without Bobby G.

Tau codex has some horrible internal balance, but a couple of builds are competitive spamming strategums.

Knights is a good codex but the army still has inherent weaknesses.

Aldari has some bad internal balance but enough entries to just forgo the bad units for competitive units.
while having psychic and strategums to basically make an entire army of -2 to hit.

Drukari are an codex of odd balance decisions.
Lots of viable builds but siem competitive lists are meta changers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

At least two - the pure list had a lot of incessors with some death company and sanguinary guard - lemartes at the lead, while the top ba/guard soup had three squads of sang-guard, no captains, and 10 full squads of catachan infantry.

Two others I recall were guard CP soup, BA captains, and some form of Imperial support (the top wolves list - adding thunderwolves, and the top sisters list - adding seraphim)

So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

Eldar are not at the top. I think we're generally seeing Imperial Soup (Guard CP / artillery spam + Custodes or BA as an assault element) as the dominant tournament winners.

Close second, though, I feel.

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

Marines across the board need buffs, because for some reason GW felt it was more appropriate to take things that were shared between the codexes that were universally bad (Terminators, CTs not on vehicles, Primaris Marines, Land Raiders Vindicators etc) and KEEP them terrible rather than fixing them well past the time when they know they'd mostly gotten their heads out of their butts. I'm guessing it was done to avoid complaints from base marine players that, say, Blood Angels got 100% better vehicles, etc. But it's still a wildly crappy decision from an overall balance standpoint.

Looking objectively at what armies people are bringing to tournaments, you've got clear tiers:

"a large fraction of stuff in the book is good" tier:

-Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Custodes, Guard, Admech (seeing a serious resurgence with the FW drill), Harlequins, Tyranids

"A small fraction of the stuff in the book is good enough to make one competitive build or include in a competitive soup build" tier:

-Daemons (specifically nurgle), Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Chaos marines, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Sisters of Battle, Orks, Deathwatch, Necrons

"Pretty much nothing is good, only ever makes marginal appearances very occasionally"

-Grey Knights, Space Wolves, GSC, All Forgeworld armies

See how ALL the power armor stuff is sitting in that second tier or below? That's because almost all of them have a bunch of stuff that's either copies of already useless things (Vindys, LRs, Rhinos, Drop Pods etc) or based on a template of useless things (Terminator based units, Power Armor based units with few exceptions, Dreadnought based units). After the completion of the baseline codexes, this is the biggest balance hurdle 40k has to jump over to achieve better balance.

That said, the fact that there are ONLY three armies that are non-viable entirely in tournament play would have been pretty much crazy talk in any other edition of the game.

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

That's only half the story though due to being able to take imperial armies and choas armies and Aldaeri armies, as souping allows you to cherry pick the best units out of multiple codex's for optimised lists. It would be closer than where 8th edition currently is but not close to balanced.

Also many codex's have poor unit costing rendering iconic units unplayable bad
GW's 40K design team doesn't seem to have the time/ability to be able to understand why units do or don't work and what they need to do to balance them.

Like a tau crisis suit without weapons costs 42 points, more than a 40p custodes without weapons and this is the same rules team who then gave out 3ppm conscripts and gave drukari always wounds on a 2+, not to mention the can't see me codex of -4 to hit.

Honestly. My crons are unbeaten in 1v1 since the new edition came out, granted, these are only in semi-competitive games in a local meta.

Overpriced. Yes.
Have to play smart? Absolutely.
Need to run solid lists to have a chance to win? Definitely.

But I wouldn't call the dex bottom-dweller.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

At least two - the pure list had a lot of incessors with some death company and sanguinary guard - lemartes at the lead, while the top ba/guard soup had three squads of sang-guard, no captains, and 10 full squads of catachan infantry.

Two others I recall were guard CP soup, BA captains, and some form of Imperial support (the top wolves list - adding thunderwolves, and the top sisters list - adding seraphim)

Community won't forgive you for this intolerable attitude. Everything must be crap.

the_scotsman wrote:
Looking objectively at what armies people are bringing to tournaments, you've got clear tiers:

I'm not sold on custodes beyond the bikes, at least as a tournament army.
As mix at match allies the wolves do bring thunderwolves/lords as a decent soup filler, filling a similar role to bikes and other souped units in the guard/smash captain list.

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

LVO 2018 - top 8 consisted of 4 eldar lists, 3 Imperial lists containing varying amounts of Blood Angels, and one chaos list.
IIRC the 9th and 10th place lists were also mixed imperial/blood angel armies.

A few more books and no more first turn assaults now, but it's not as if anything drastic has happened since the LVO to give other factions a big leg up over the BA beyond those that have moved away from their index rules.

I'd count ravagers as drastic. Maybe I'm just picking up all those models in a fever dream?

Martel732 wrote:
I'd count ravagers as drastic. Maybe I'm just picking up all those models in a fever dream?

I'd count them as an index faction getting a codex. Not really something to complain about.

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd count ravagers as drastic. Maybe I'm just picking up all those models in a fever dream?

I'd count them as an index faction getting a codex. Not really something to complain about.

We can agree to disagree.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Honestly. My crons are unbeaten in 1v1 since the new edition came out, granted, these are only in semi-competitive games in a local meta.

Overpriced. Yes.
Have to play smart? Absolutely.
Need to run solid lists to have a chance to win? Definitely.

But I wouldn't call the dex bottom-dweller.

Necrons are not nearly as bad as people claim they are on these forums. I know some very good necron players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Looking objectively at what armies people are bringing to tournaments, you've got clear tiers:

I'm not sold on custodes beyond the bikes, at least as a tournament army.
As mix at match allies the wolves do bring thunderwolves/lords as a decent soup filler, filling a similar role to bikes and other souped units in the guard/smash captain list.

Except that's all you need for a supplement to Guard. Those bikes are BONKERS, they are good enough on their own to win any game, just give them the standard Guard CP battery, and Artillery cheese.

 Marmatag wrote:
Except that's all you need for a supplement to Guard. Those bikes are BONKERS, they are good enough on their own to win any game, just give them the standard Guard CP battery, and Artillery cheese.

Yes - I was just suggesting they seemed to fit better in the description of tier 2 (limited builds but good soup potential) rather than tier 1 (good number of tournament-worthy units).

A.T. wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Except that's all you need for a supplement to Guard. Those bikes are BONKERS, they are good enough on their own to win any game, just give them the standard Guard CP battery, and Artillery cheese.

Yes - I was just suggesting they seemed to fit better in the description of tier 2 (limited builds but good soup potential) rather than tier 1 (good number of tournament-worthy units).

Theyre definitely borderline. I've seen a fair few pure custard lists in tournaments (mostly focusing on bikes, but also including vexators and regular schmoes) so I threw them into T1, but I haven't played them a lot so I could be wrong. I'm sure without the bikes they'd be T2 solidly, and again they suffer from a bit of the overall Power Armor Problem (Powblrem?) as their only non-forgeworld transport is a suck raider, and the only heavy choice they have is a crappy non-FW contemptor dread, which cant be outfitted for dakka.

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

Eldar aren't an army any more than Imperium is.

And if you meant Craftworlds, 2-5 good units doesn't make an army either when the rest is unplayable garbage.

Aren't IG at least as "up there" as CWE and DE?

Aren't Harlies somewhere between T1 and T2? Technically, they don't have many bad options, but that's because they don't have many options period.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

Eldar aren't an army any more than Imperium is.

And if you meant Craftworlds, 2-5 good units doesn't make an army either when the rest is unplayable garbage.

Farseers Spiritseers Crimson Hunters Hemlocks Wave Serpents Rangers Fire Prisms Warlock Skyrunners Autarch Skyrunners Dark Reapers and Shining Spears is what I typically see out of competitive CWE lists, which more than qualifies them for Tier 1 given the viable unit pool of other tier 1 armies.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Honestly. My crons are unbeaten in 1v1 since the new edition came out, granted, these are only in semi-competitive games in a local meta.

Overpriced. Yes.
Have to play smart? Absolutely.
Need to run solid lists to have a chance to win? Definitely.

But I wouldn't call the dex bottom-dweller.

Necrons haven't placed in the top 3 of any GT or Major since 8th edition came out (up until mid May at least). They have legitimately done worse in tournaments than GK have. As far as tournament standings they are currently the worst performing army in the game. If we can get people to stop with the "I win every game in my local hobby shop" chatter, maybe GW will address the problem with the worst performing army in the game. Anecdotal experience outside of a competitive scene vs competitive with statistical data gathered in large sample sets, isn't terribly useful.

Yes, they are a codex bottom dweller, no question. Competent players wreck them in a tournament environment, consistently. (The only potential capable build is 3 LoW)

http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

Woo boy, claiming the whole Craftworlds army except two units is garbage. lol

the_scotsman wrote:
Theyre definitely borderline. I've seen a fair few pure custard lists in tournaments (mostly focusing on bikes, but also including vexators and regular schmoes) so I threw them into T1, but I haven't played them a lot so I could be wrong.

It'll most likely be based around a banner to protect the bikes from first turn alpha strikes (-1 to hit) and minimum troops to fill out CP requirements.
But custodes bikes do scale up well compared to some soup units (like captain smash). The big biker units a pure custodes force can field have even more punch than the supreme command trio.

Bharring wrote:
Aren't IG at least as "up there" as CWE and DE?

Aren't Harlies somewhere between T1 and T2? Technically, they don't have many bad options, but that's because they don't have many options period.

IG are still winning major events.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

Eldar aren't an army any more than Imperium is.

And if you meant Craftworlds, 2-5 good units doesn't make an army either when the rest is unplayable garbage.

The only things that are pure garbage are melle aspect warriors and the avatar. Everything else with maybe the exception of the wraithlord (which can actually do pretty well fi it gets ignored for a single turn. I played one last night and he killed twice his value in points and held up a unit of custodian guards for a turn until some wardens knocked him over) is about as good as the good options in other armies.

Warwalkers are great - 5++ save and 2 heavies for cheap.
Night spinner is pretty good too. Artillery tank that can fall back and shoot - is really nifty. 2d6 ignore LOS str 7 flat 2 ap-4 on 6 is no joke.

Eldar can literally get by just based on the fact ap-3 on 6's is the minimum damage units are pushing out. It's such a strong ability.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:
Woo boy, claiming the whole Craftworlds army except two units is garbage. lol

Yeah I thought that was funny too.

A.T. wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Except that's all you need for a supplement to Guard. Those bikes are BONKERS, they are good enough on their own to win any game, just give them the standard Guard CP battery, and Artillery cheese.

Yes - I was just suggesting they seemed to fit better in the description of tier 2 (limited builds but good soup potential) rather than tier 1 (good number of tournament-worthy units).

...How exactly are Necrons supposed to soup?

"The only things that are pure garbage are melle aspect warriors and the avatar."
Storm Guardians say hi. Oh, and Windriders.

And every Phoenix Lord (the CM equivelants).

And Vypers.

But most of the units in the CWE book are above par. I agree that CWE is top tier.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

At least two - the pure list had a lot of incessors with some death company and sanguinary guard - lemartes at the lead, while the top ba/guard soup had three squads of sang-guard, no captains, and 10 full squads of catachan infantry.

Two others I recall were guard CP soup, BA captains, and some form of Imperial support (the top wolves list - adding thunderwolves, and the top sisters list - adding seraphim)

Rare occurence
Don't bank the codex on those two lists. Were it consistent you'd have a point.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

Eldar aren't an army any more than Imperium is.

And if you meant Craftworlds, 2-5 good units doesn't make an army either when the rest is unplayable garbage.

Depends on what class those 2-5 units are. AdMech can do some pretty good stuff with just enginseers, rangers, dune crawlers, bots, and destroyers. (Or whatever those tracked troops are called)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Farseers Spiritseers Crimson Hunters Hemlocks Wave Serpents Rangers Fire Prisms Warlock Skyrunners Autarch Skyrunners Dark Reapers and Shining Spears is what I typically see out of competitive CWE lists, which more than qualifies them for Tier 1 given the viable unit pool of other tier 1 armies.

Commas dude.

Why do people feel the need to start these threads? Is it validation that their army is poor? Is it just to watch the world burn in a salt mine? I don't get it - the question is incredibly subjective.

Unless you're willing to play using the current flavour of the month units that are most competitive virtually any codex is going to seem awful.

I don't see many biker armies, anywhere. I don't see many bikes at all in fact. If you're a Saim Hann, White Scar, Ravenwing or any other biker-centric player you're probably going to think your codex is pretty dire, regardless of how many powerful options it has available to it.

Extremely generally I'd say that all codexes apart from Grey Knights are considered playable. Some more than others for sure. Obviously any army that is able to soup is infinitely more powerful than one that can't.

Some people I could name start threads with the intention of "I know people are pretty mopey about army [xxxx], but it's what I own already. I'd like to be a little more competitive but I don't want to buy a whole other army, I'm looking for ideas on how to best utilize what I already have."

That lasted about a page and a half before making the left turn into a salt mine.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why do people feel the need to start these threads? Is it validation that their army is poor? Is it just to watch the world burn in a salt mine? I don't get it - the question is incredibly subjective.

Unless you're willing to play using the current flavour of the month units that are most competitive virtually any codex is going to seem awful.

I don't see many biker armies, anywhere. I don't see many bikes at all in fact. If you're a Saim Hann, White Scar, Ravenwing or any other biker-centric player you're probably going to think your codex is pretty dire, regardless of how many powerful options it has available to it.

Extremely generally I'd say that all codexes apart from Grey Knights are considered playable. Some more than others for sure. Obviously any army that is able to soup is infinitely more powerful than one that can't.

Ummm those Windriders that advance and charge are pretty gnarly. They are very much a thing. It's just marine bikes that don't function.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Rare occurence
Don't bank the codex on those two lists. Were it consistent you'd have a point.

Adepticon top 16 then? Two more - an aggressors and sang-guard list led by Seth, and a sang-guard and chaplain element supporting a guard/shield captain list.

Plus the usual smash-captain showings - one with the guard/scouts/support element setup and the other being a supreme command joined to dark angels.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Rare occurence
Don't bank the codex on those two lists. Were it consistent you'd have a point.

Adepticon top 16 then? Two more - an aggressors and sang-guard list led by Seth, and a sang-guard and chaplain element supporting a guard/shield captain list.

Plus the usual smash-captain showings - one with the guard/scouts/support element setup and the other being a supreme command joined to dark angels.

Chaplain one sounds like the usual support like Slamguinus, but I didn't hear about the Aggressors list so I'd to definitely look at it if you got a link.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Why do people feel the need to start these threads? Is it validation that their army is poor? Is it just to watch the world burn in a salt mine? I don't get it - the question is incredibly subjective.

Unless you're willing to play using the current flavour of the month units that are most competitive virtually any codex is going to seem awful.

I don't see many biker armies, anywhere. I don't see many bikes at all in fact. If you're a Saim Hann, White Scar, Ravenwing or any other biker-centric player you're probably going to think your codex is pretty dire, regardless of how many powerful options it has available to it.

Extremely generally I'd say that all codexes apart from Grey Knights are considered playable. Some more than others for sure. Obviously any army that is able to soup is infinitely more powerful than one that can't.

Craftworlds Shining Spears, Harlequins Skyweavers, and Custodes Vertus Praetors are three really powerful bikers. It’s not like bikers are universally bad, maybe non-Scout SM bikes are bad but many others are still great. This edition really rewards units that move quickly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Chaplain one sounds like the usual support like Slamguinus, but I didn't hear about the Aggressors list so I'd to definitely look at it if you got a link.

Andrew Gonyos list -
BA element: Seth, Librarian with pack, 3 min scout squads(bolters), 9 sanguinary guard, 3 squads of 5 aggressors, company ancient with powersword, and the standard of devastation.
Guard element: Straken, Catachan commander with powersword, priest, six infantry squads(bare), two cadian commanders, and six cadian mortar squads
BA made up 1357pts of the 2000pt list.

--

The chaplain had a regular crozius and stormbolter, running in support of a pair of seven man sanguinary guard squads and a sanguinary ancient. Rounded out by a single squad of scouts with pistols and knives. Roughly 750pts out of the 2000pt list with another 750 of guard and 500 of custodes.

--

The two others were mephiston and a pair of jump HQs, one with scouts for the extra CPs while the other swapped a captain for Lemartes.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Chaplain one sounds like the usual support like Slamguinus, but I didn't hear about the Aggressors list so I'd to definitely look at it if you got a link.

Andrew Gonyos list -
BA element: Seth, Librarian with pack, 3 min scout squads(bolters), 9 sanguinary guard, 3 squads of 5 aggressors, company ancient with powersword, and the standard of devastation.
Guard element: Straken, Catachan commander with powersword, priest, six infantry squads(bare), two cadian commanders, and six cadian mortar squads
BA made up 1357pts of the 2000pt list.

--

The chaplain had a regular crozius and stormbolter, running in support of a pair of seven man sanguinary guard squads and a sanguinary ancient. Rounded out by a single squad of scouts with pistols and knives. Roughly 750pts out of the 2000pt list with another 750 of guard and 500 of custodes.

--

The two others were mephiston and a pair of jump HQs, one with scouts for the extra CPs while the other swapped a captain for Lemartes.

Oh. You had me thinking it was pure. Still that's a good number of points.

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

valdier wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
Honestly. My crons are unbeaten in 1v1 since the new edition came out, granted, these are only in semi-competitive games in a local meta.

Overpriced. Yes.
Have to play smart? Absolutely.
Need to run solid lists to have a chance to win? Definitely.

But I wouldn't call the dex bottom-dweller.

Necrons haven't placed in the top 3 of any GT or Major since 8th edition came out (up until mid May at least). They have legitimately done worse in tournaments than GK have. As far as tournament standings they are currently the worst performing army in the game. If we can get people to stop with the "I win every game in my local hobby shop" chatter, maybe GW will address the problem with the worst performing army in the game. Anecdotal experience outside of a competitive scene vs competitive with statistical data gathered in large sample sets, isn't terribly useful.

Yes, they are a codex bottom dweller, no question. Competent players wreck them in a tournament environment, consistently. (The only potential capable build is 3 LoW)

http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

Totally agree. Necrons can't soup to balance out their weaknesses which are... i don't even know where to start... lol

What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

The rules they pay a premium for are either easy to negate (RP) or unreliable (QS), they don't have many options to deal with heavy targets or hoards, and they have a lot of overpriced units.
They aren't terrible, but they could be a lot better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere

Good placement, aggressive opponents, screening with the guard and other marines perhaps - I don't know, he got DQed for an illegal relic/chapter combination in the final rounds but they seemed to work well enough for him until then.

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

It was just laymen overestimating them. They saw some nice strategems (and Necrons do have good ones) and declared the codex was powerful. Whereas many of us actual Necron players knew the book was trash as soon as the beta version was leaked.

I'm just glad that we do have some powerful strats - without them Necrons would be absolute bottom tier, although still better than GK probably...

We overestimated how impactful Extermination Protocols would be, basically. It's a great stratagem but it's not good enough to carry the entire faction by itself.

Yeah, its good, but I don't see how its supposed to fulfil anti-tank roles. I found it way too unreliable.

That's the thing about necrons - for a race obsessed with immortality and stasis, there is an absurd amount of variation. A lot of the rules could be simplified.

Take Quantum Shielding - if you analyse it, you'll find it's actually a highly unreliably and clunky rule, that generally requires 2 variable conditions; your opponent has to roll for damage and then you have to roll under that damage. In practice it hurts the flow of the game as there's an interrupting step at an odd place.

A much more graceful and reliable approach would be to simply give the vehicle an invul save that's the same as the weapon's wounding requirement.
So an annihilation barge, for example, would get a 3+ invul against a lascannon, but a 5+ save against a bolter. Imo, that's a much simpler and more effective solution that still has the feel of how a quantum shield should work, rather than constantly playing the lottery.

I just can’t get my head around every codex being awful? Out of all of the tactics threads I’ve looked at for each of the codex’z is just continuous whining about how there are only 1 to 2 good options in (insert codex) and how Gw hate (insert codex) and we can never have good rules.......then reminisce about the good old days, when everything was just dandy, in such and such edition. If this is the case and every codex is bottom tier, then GW have done a great job of balancing them (not grey knights)

Well done GW, top notch job

I look forward to you justifying to me how bad your codex currently is

 Marklarr wrote:
I just can’t get my head around every codex being awful? Out of all of the tactics threads I’ve looked at for each of the codex’z is just continuous whining about how there are only 1 to 2 good options in (insert codex) and how Gw hate (insert codex) and we can never have good rules.......then reminisce about the good old days, when everything was just dandy, in such and such edition. If this is the case and every codex is bottom tier, then GW have done a great job of balancing them (not grey knights)

Well done GW, top notch job

I look forward to you justifying to me how bad your codex currently is

yeah everyones favourite hobby seems to blaming their army for their losses. Certain races more than others

Bharring wrote:
"The only things that are pure garbage are melle aspect warriors and the avatar."
Storm Guardians say hi. Oh, and Windriders.

And every Phoenix Lord (the CM equivelants).

And Vypers.

But most of the units in the CWE book are above par. I agree that CWE is top tier.

I forgot storm guardians exist. Probably because defenders are so much better but even they are overcosted - they get by though because they have good stratagems and synergize really well with doom. True Baharath and Karandras are really bad. Jinzar/ Aman / Fuegan / Rah - are all decent enough.

Vypers aren't actually bad - Siamhan ones are really good.

People are going to be unhappy about codexes as long as they can make comparisons to other, similar things and point out one as better than the other.

This will always happen. The best we can hope for is good inter-codex balance.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its good, but I don't see how its supposed to fulfil anti-tank roles. I found it way too unreliable.

That's the thing about necrons - for a race obsessed with immortality and stasis, there is an absurd amount of variation. A lot of the rules could be simplified.

Take Quantum Shielding - if you analyse it, you'll find it's actually a highly unreliably and clunky rule, that generally requires 2 variable conditions; your opponent has to roll for damage and then you have to roll under that damage. In practice it hurts the flow of the game as there's an interrupting step at an odd place.

A much more graceful and reliable approach would be to simply give the vehicle an invul save that's the same as the weapon's wounding requirement.
So an annihilation barge, for example, would get a 3+ invul against a lascannon, but a 5+ save against a bolter. Imo, that's a much simpler and more effective solution that still has the feel of how a quantum shield should work, rather than constantly playing the lottery.

Now that's some good game design.

Would a flat 5++ be a simpler rule that does basically the same thing? Reduce the impact of strong hits, without impacting light ones? It'd be based on AP instead of S.

Bharring wrote:
Would a flat 5++ be a simpler rule that does basically the same thing? Reduce the impact of strong hits, without impacting light ones? It'd be based on AP instead of S.

It would be simpler, but there are 2 problems

1) It wouldn't accurately demonstrate a defensive system that's supposed to be effective against power hits as opposed to weaker hits. There are low strength / High AP weapons in the game, so I don't think a flat invul save would represent it all that well. Making QS into a simple, flat 5++ save would kill the nuance of that rule. It would be as bad as turning RP into FNP.

2) Its a generic special rule in a game full of generic special rules. As much as I don't like the current QS in practice, I do appreciate they tried to do something different rather than "just reroll 1s". Its a problem I have with the resorb; you have a legacy necron item that's supposed to be a powerful tool...and its an expensive single use item that just confers rerolls, and doesn't really synergize with the RP rule. It would be more interesting and effective if you could activate when a nearby squad gets wiped out and make RP rolls for them at that moment. That would make it worth its points and the single use limitation.

My version is simpler, but it keeps a bit of the nuance as well as making the game a bit more interesting mechanics wise.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere

Good placement, aggressive opponents, screening with the guard and other marines perhaps - I don't know, he got DQed for an illegal relic/chapter combination in the final rounds but they seemed to work well enough for him until then.

OH I heard about that list. What was the relic in question?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere

Good placement, aggressive opponents, screening with the guard and other marines perhaps - I don't know, he got DQed for an illegal relic/chapter combination in the final rounds but they seemed to work well enough for him until then.

OH I heard about that list. What was the relic in question?

It's on his list as the Standard of Devastation, but would have been the Standard of Sacrifice - in a Flesh Tearers detachment.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Marklarr wrote:
I just can’t get my head around every codex being awful? Out of all of the tactics threads I’ve looked at for each of the codex’z is just continuous whining about how there are only 1 to 2 good options in (insert codex) and how Gw hate (insert codex) and we can never have good rules.......then reminisce about the good old days, when everything was just dandy, in such and such edition. If this is the case and every codex is bottom tier, then GW have done a great job of balancing them (not grey knights)

Well done GW, top notch job

I look forward to you justifying to me how bad your codex currently is

yeah everyones favourite hobby seems to blaming their army for their losses. Certain races more than others

*cough* SM players *cough*

Necrons are always going to be tricky. Regeneration as a mechanic always threatens with a game hitting an immortality line where the army is invincible against anything below it and folds rapidly to anything above it. Getting it just right against multiple opponents with variable output is extremely tricky.

I think a cheap CP dynasty would go a long way to helping Necrons make the most of what they've got. I'm pretty sure Necrons are the only faction in the game who can't take a 40 point Troop slot. Something that let them take a scarab battalion somehow would be a big help.

Cynista wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

It was just laymen overestimating them. They saw some nice strategems (and Necrons do have good ones) and declared the codex was powerful. Whereas many of us actual Necron players knew the book was trash as soon as the beta version was leaked.

I'm just glad that we do have some powerful strats - without them Necrons would be absolute bottom tier, although still better than GK probably...

This and, people were assuming that you needed to handle MEQ. Necrons were evaluated in comparison to TAC marines, which ended up being essentially the worst troops in the game. Warriors are better than TAC marines, but that really isn't saying much. If you assume TAC marines are middle of the pack, then Necron warriors are trending on the good side of things.

The statline defining 8th edition, in reality is GEQ. And warriors end up getting extra stuff that doesn't really matter, because fighting GEQ is all about killing efficiency not durability.

Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Why do you think that's odd?

Because those two worked out to about the same points/slot for min troops, with a *very* large gap between them and most of the other armies. I was expecting a more continuious-looking series.

Unless you're saying that having cheaper min troop options makes you more powerful. But I'm not sure that I'd agree that SM are stronger than CWE...

Bharring wrote:
Because those two worked out to about the same points/slot for min troops, with a *very* large gap between them and most of the other armies. I was expecting a more continuious-looking series.

Unless you're saying that having cheaper min troop options makes you more powerful. But I'm not sure that I'd agree that SM are stronger than CWE...

Maybe it's part of the equation. Also, effectiveness of what you are forced to pay for is pretty important, too.

I don't think it's a shock that the bottom three also have the best troops in the game.

Not an expert, but maybe this was a rethorical question.

The problem is that defensive stats outside of toughness and invulnerable saves are totally overvalued as a result of the transition from flat AP to Rend. Subtracting those two things it becomes cost to wound ratio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Because those two worked out to about the same points/slot for min troops, with a *very* large gap between them and most of the other armies. I was expecting a more continuious-looking series.

Unless you're saying that having cheaper min troop options makes you more powerful. But I'm not sure that I'd agree that SM are stronger than CWE...

Both of these armies suffer in the HQ slot as well. GK have it worse than Necrons there, by a significant margin.

Bharring wrote:
Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Necrons are 85.
They have 5 man units of immortals.

That smooths the curve out a bit.

Where are Custodes at?

Bharring wrote:
That smooths the curve out a bit.

Where are Custodes at?

Each dude is 55 points I think? They're expensive that's for sure.

They really wreck the curve.

To be fair, it's really just one guy that's running Custodes troops at all, everyone else that plays them uses the bikes in an otherwise AM list.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
To be fair, it's really just one guy that's running Custodes troops at all, everyone else that plays them uses the bikes in an otherwise AM list.

It's my dream those Gun dudes from 30k are finally ported over so that I can run a brigade for Custodes.

Unfortunately that's probably still gonna be over 2k...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
To be fair, it's really just one guy that's running Custodes troops at all, everyone else that plays them uses the bikes in an otherwise AM list.

It's my dream those Gun dudes from 30k are finally ported over so that I can run a brigade for Custodes.

Unfortunately that's probably still gonna be over 2k...

A Battalion of those guys would be pushing it already.

Cynista wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

It was just laymen overestimating them. They saw some nice strategems (and Necrons do have good ones) and declared the codex was powerful. Whereas many of us actual Necron players knew the book was trash as soon as the beta version was leaked.

I'm just glad that we do have some powerful strats - without them Necrons would be absolute bottom tier, although still better than GK probably...

As noted previously GK have performed significantly better in the competitive scene than Necrons have. Necrons are the worst codex per tournament stats over the last year.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

Wrong. Point for point Aggressors get their value off regular shooting. Even without the double shooting they are one of the fiercest offensive units points wise, having 150% damage output of Devilgants for example, a unit considered a good anti-infantry glass cannon, or almost double the damage output of guard mortar teams. They then, without having had double shot, force your opponents hand in the threat they put down, as that once you get them to this range, they need to be dealt with in some manner immediately or they often outright win the game the next turn, with DOUBLE those numbers in shooting and a fierce melee follow up for the heavy stuff. And dealing with them can be a difficult prospect against BA who aren't going to let you do that for free at all. I think it's an excellent list and I'm entirely unsurprised to see it do well. Their offense is not primarily hinged off getting to double shoot at all, move-shooting is more than worth its points if you get it there and the threat of double shooting the turn before it is often where their strength lies as well even if you don't get to do it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Necrons are 85.
They have 5 man units of immortals.

A minimum size (10) Warrior squad is 120.

AdMech has a 189 point min troop choice (Kataphron Destroyers). This tells you precisely nothing about AdMech or their ability to run battalions.

I think what Bharring was getting at was how expensive it is for various factions to take troop choices for battalions using their min troops, not what the most expensive MSU troop in each codex was.

Yeah but this list is still far from being relevant. Because 65 for Harlies? No one ever would do that. So it's basicly non existant. Same for Craftworlds. 3x naked Storm Guardians? Never.

Harlies realistic min. points troop unit is 95 (cheapest cc weapon) and 60 for Craftworlds (Rangers). The difference here is that Rangers are a very good troop unit. The 95 Harlies example is only ok with his specific loadout.
I assume it's similar for some other factions.

What really counts, if you want to make this comparison, is cheapest usable Battaillon, or troop choice, for a tournament.

meleti wrote:
AdMech has a 189 point min troop choice (Kataphron Destroyers). This tells you precisely nothing about AdMech or their ability to run battalions.

I think what Bharring was getting at was how expensive it is for various factions to take troop choices for battalions using their min troops, not what the most expensive MSU troop in each codex was.

But they also have access to cheaper troops 55 for a min. Squad. They are also good.

So no there is a good point here.

EDIT: That isn't even going into how it actually opens up some kind of option for Admech players.

Are QS that bad?

Running simulations on my PC I found out that the reduction of the
- average damage of a D D6 weapon: from 3.5 to 1.5 (-58%)
- average damage of a D D3 weapon: from 2 to 1.5 (-25%)
- average damage of a D 3 weapon: from 3 to 2 (-33%)
- average damage of a D 2 weapon: from 2 to 1.6 (-20%)

Are top tier armies spamming enough D2 oder DD3 weapons to kill those vehicles quickly or are the vehicles that overpriced, nobody takes more than 2 or 3?

A bit of column A, a bit of column B. Plasma isn't as meta-defining as it was earlier in 8th's lifespan but D2 is definitely still around; probably the bigger problem is that the only good QS model is the Doomsday Ark, which at 193 points is something you can only bring 2 or 3 of as you say.

 Blndmage wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Necrons are 85.
They have 5 man units of immortals.

A minimum size (10) Warrior squad is 120.

Ah whoops, I misread it as least expensive.
Yes, least expensive minimum is 85 for 5 immortals, most expensive minimum is 120 for 10 warriors.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

Wrong. Point for point Aggressors get their value off regular shooting. Even without the double shooting they are one of the fiercest offensive units points wise, having 150% damage output of Devilgants for example, a unit considered a good anti-infantry glass cannon, or almost double the damage output of guard mortar teams. They then, without having had double shot, force your opponents hand in the threat they put down, as that once you get them to this range, they need to be dealt with in some manner immediately or they often outright win the game the next turn, with DOUBLE those numbers in shooting and a fierce melee follow up for the heavy stuff. And dealing with them can be a difficult prospect against BA who aren't going to let you do that for free at all. I think it's an excellent list and I'm entirely unsurprised to see it do well. Their offense is not primarily hinged off getting to double shoot at all, move-shooting is more than worth its points if you get it there and the threat of double shooting the turn before it is often where their strength lies as well even if you don't get to do it.

You DO realize how expensive they are right? They absolutely need their double shooting. Otherwise you're better off with Assault Centurions at that point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

Wrong. Point for point Aggressors get their value off regular shooting. Even without the double shooting they are one of the fiercest offensive units points wise, having 150% damage output of Devilgants for example, a unit considered a good anti-infantry glass cannon, or almost double the damage output of guard mortar teams. They then, without having had double shot, force your opponents hand in the threat they put down, as that once you get them to this range, they need to be dealt with in some manner immediately or they often outright win the game the next turn, with DOUBLE those numbers in shooting and a fierce melee follow up for the heavy stuff. And dealing with them can be a difficult prospect against BA who aren't going to let you do that for free at all. I think it's an excellent list and I'm entirely unsurprised to see it do well. Their offense is not primarily hinged off getting to double shoot at all, move-shooting is more than worth its points if you get it there and the threat of double shooting the turn before it is often where their strength lies as well even if you don't get to do it.

You DO realize how expensive they are right? They absolutely need their double shooting. Otherwise you're better off with Assault Centurions at that point.

.
You DO realize I said points wise, right? That means those calculations factor in how many shots they get for the same amount of points, so you are absolutely wrong.

Aggressors die like little bitches. Gravis armor is a failure. They are only viable in deathwatch, and even then, the tax to take them is high. Inceptors, hellblasters, and aggressors are basically IG heavy weapon teams and have all the same problems. They are all failures.

Aggressors are legit. And surprisingly cheap. 18 of them is only 666 points and has some serious firepower with a Chapter Master providing re-rolls.

That's not cheap at all.

Martel732 wrote:
That's not cheap at all.

For 18 T5 bodies with tons of dakka, 36 wounds and good saves? That’s a great value.

You and I have very different ideas of value.

Martel732 wrote:
You and I have very different ideas of value.

Yeah well The rest of the competitive community has a different idea of value to you. I’m going I agree with the people who actually understand the game are getting those W’s

Martel732 wrote:
Inceptors, hellblasters, and aggressors are basically IG heavy weapon teams and have all the same problems. They are all failures.

Mortar heavy weapon teams are bad now?
Primaris were showing up in the top tournament lists even before deathwatch. Aside from the BA lists I posted earlier a bunch of better performing DA lists at adepticon featured primaris - Josh Kinder, Dominique Carette, and Ricky Addington if you wanted to google examples of lists that went 3 of 4 for the first set of games.

Indirect fire is amazing. The actual heavy weapon teams aren't. Marines are fresh out of indirect weapons, i think.

I think those players would have done better not using trash models. And primaris are trash, make no mistake.

Martel732 wrote:
Indirect fire is amazing. The actual heavy weapon teams aren't. Marines are fresh out of indirect weapons, i think.

They aren't, their options just suck. Because it turns out indirect fire is actually only as good as the model shooting.

I don't know of any primaris indirect fire.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know of any primaris indirect fire.

Oh, sorry, I failed to take into account the Dakka Alternate Universe canon where Games Workshop in your universe filled the skies with black helicopters in their quest to kick down every marine player's door and steal their non-primaris marine models.

I was comparing primaris shooters to ig heavy weapon teams. Why would i include regular marine units in that discussion?

Martel732 wrote:
I think those players would have done better not using trash models. And primaris are trash, make no mistake.

Offer some support for your position beyond "it's trash" - or alternatively some explanation of your grading system. When someone says trash I think Jacobus or the malcador, your standards clearly differ.

Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport.

Martel732 wrote:
Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport.

At yet seemingly quite successful on the tabletop.

"Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport."

Is that why Shining Spears are so bad?

I would disagree with that. I can't comprehend the few successes they do have, as i have curbstomped these losers every match against them. They rarely appear in the touney standings from the lists i have seen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport."

Is that why Shining Spears are so bad?

Prinaris are a lot slower and have poor damage output in general.

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Low model count, poor effective range, extreme susceptibility to easily-spammed 2 damage weapons. Overcosted transport.

At yet seemingly quite successful on the tabletop.

Saying Primaris are successful is stretching it quite a bit.

Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You and I have very different ideas of value.

Yeah well The rest of the competitive community has a different idea of value to you. I’m going I agree with the people who actually understand the game are getting those W’s

Aggressors are solid but you won't do well against Eldar Soup, Knights, or Custodes Soup. That's kind of what it takes y'know?

I'm sure the entire competitive community thinks aggressors are baller.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

Literally anything is good with Roboute. Rerolling everything kinda makes your damage output good when you got the aura like he does.

Reivers still need at minimum a point of AP on their Combat Blades. That alone would make them slightly more attractive.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

Literally anything is good with Roboute. Rerolling everything kinda makes your damage output good when you got the aura like he does.

Reivers still need at minimum a point of AP on their Combat Blades. That alone would make them slightly more attractive.

Roboute is too expensive for what he provides.

If you go second, you're toast. If you go first, you'll potentially do ok. It's not the recipe for sustained success.

Every unit is magnified in offensive firepower but also magnified in relative cost when slain... as you have 25% less army when he's in there.

“Aggressors are good” and “SM are a low-mid tier army” are mutually compatible beliefs. You need more than a great horde clearing unit to sustain a competitive faction, of course.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

Literally anything is good with Roboute. Rerolling everything kinda makes your damage output good when you got the aura like he does.

Reivers still need at minimum a point of AP on their Combat Blades. That alone would make them slightly more attractive.

I agree with the ap on the combat blade, but how do you feel about the carbine?

Personally I think it's too similar to the assault bolt rifle(because it's the same profile). Do you think rivers having Ap on their carbines would be too much? Ap - 1 or assault 3 no ap just to make it different.

 fraser1191 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

Literally anything is good with Roboute. Rerolling everything kinda makes your damage output good when you got the aura like he does.

Reivers still need at minimum a point of AP on their Combat Blades. That alone would make them slightly more attractive.

I agree with the ap on the combat blade, but how do you feel about the carbine?

Personally I think it's too similar to the assault bolt rifle(because it's the same profile). Do you think rivers having Ap on their carbines would be too much? Ap - 1 or assault 3 no ap just to make it different.

I would think Assault 3 would suffice. Does that need a point increase by 1 or nah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

Literally anything is good with Roboute. Rerolling everything kinda makes your damage output good when you got the aura like he does.

Reivers still need at minimum a point of AP on their Combat Blades. That alone would make them slightly more attractive.

Roboute is too expensive for what he provides.

If you go second, you're toast. If you go first, you'll potentially do ok. It's not the recipe for sustained success.

Every unit is magnified in offensive firepower but also magnified in relative cost when slain... as you have 25% less army when he's in there.

He REALLY isn't. He's finally at the appropriate price if anything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Primaris are successful in certain armies: namely Dark Angels (Hellblasters) and Ultramarines armies with Guilliman (since Fire Base Guilliman still works reasonably well). Reavers can work for Blood Angels, but most people look for other options who have wider melee options.

Literally anything is good with Roboute. Rerolling everything kinda makes your damage output good when you got the aura like he does.

Reivers still need at minimum a point of AP on their Combat Blades. That alone would make them slightly more attractive.

Roboute is too expensive for what he provides.

If you go second, you're toast. If you go first, you'll potentially do ok. It's not the recipe for sustained success.

Every unit is magnified in offensive firepower but also magnified in relative cost when slain... as you have 25% less army when he's in there.

He REALLY isn't. He's finally at the appropriate price if anything.

The issue is does Bobby G alone at 400 points perform like a 400point model? Not really or atleast not a competitive one.
Does Bobby G surrounded by appropriate weapons for the respective targets perform like a 400 point model? Close but casual games only.
Does Bobby G surrounded by 1.5k of models abusing the aura buffs make him work 400 points? Yes, however you can bet any list not built to maximise abuse of Bobby G's aura is gonna suck.

So he's only worth his points if you build an entire 2k list to exploit one build.

OK so what you describe is a well costed model then? Balance revolves around how a model plays when used well, not when used poorly. As it stands he's a 400 point model who makes an entire build work, one that sees success at the highest levels of the game. He is not overcosted at all, he just might not be right for every single thing you may want to do with the codex as a whole.

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK so what you describe is a well costed model then? Balance revolves around how a model plays when used well, not when used poorly. As it stands he's a 400 point model who makes an entire build work, one that sees success at the highest levels of the game. He is not overcosted at all, he just might not be right for every single thing you may want to do with the codex as a whole.

The answer is incredibly simple don't use shonky aura buffs that can't be priced appropriately as it throws the points costing of the rest of the codex to heck in a handbasket. If they had stopped and thought about how to balance the codex with and without Bobby G for more than a nano second or maybe playtested the first codex of the most playtested edition. It's really poor game design when you reward players more for making bad match up choices.

This, assault cannon razorbacks were nerfed because of this build, and a lot of armies (like Grey Knights) paid the price, despite never really utilizing these to even remotely close to the same effect.

Yeah, as long as G-Man exist space marines will never be able to be properly fixed because if you make space marines without Bobby G balanced and competitive, with Gorillaman they become ultra bonkers.

You can just keep making Bobby G more expensive, which is what they’ve done. At some point he won’t be much stronger than just taking more guns.

phydaux wrote:
So is the consensus that only Space Marines & Grey Knights are the only "bad" codexes, and GM learned from their mistakes via feedback and all subsequent Codexes have been decent?

The Space Marine Codex was the start of all releases and ever since then its been power creep, except for grey knights..

Space Marines nearly 85% of their list is unplayable.

The SM book is always going to have some useless units because, being SM, they have like six units for each tiny little role.

Ice_can wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK so what you describe is a well costed model then? Balance revolves around how a model plays when used well, not when used poorly. As it stands he's a 400 point model who makes an entire build work, one that sees success at the highest levels of the game. He is not overcosted at all, he just might not be right for every single thing you may want to do with the codex as a whole.

The answer is incredibly simple don't use shonky aura buffs that can't be priced appropriately as it throws the points costing of the rest of the codex to heck in a handbasket. If they had stopped and thought about how to balance the codex with and without Bobby G for more than a nano second or maybe playtested the first codex of the most playtested edition. It's really poor game design when you reward players more for making bad match up choices.

Lol nope, that's not the answer because nothing you mentioned in this rant ever came into question at any point so far

The answer is "yes he's a strong unit"

 SHUPPET wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK so what you describe is a well costed model then? Balance revolves around how a model plays when used well, not when used poorly. As it stands he's a 400 point model who makes an entire build work, one that sees success at the highest levels of the game. He is not overcosted at all, he just might not be right for every single thing you may want to do with the codex as a whole.

The answer is incredibly simple don't use shonky aura buffs that can't be priced appropriately as it throws the points costing of the rest of the codex to heck in a handbasket. If they had stopped and thought about how to balance the codex with and without Bobby G for more than a nano second or maybe playtested the first codex of the most playtested edition. It's really poor game design when you reward players more for making bad match up choices.

Lol nope, that's not the answer because nothing you mentioned in this rant ever came into question at any point so far

The answer is "yes he's a strong unit"

Does Bobby G play like a 400 point model in a 1.5K point game no he doesn't. Does he play like a 400 point model at 3K or more No he doesn't. So the point stands at no points level will the aura buff be balanced as it's worth is too dependent on the rest of the list being built to exploit it. Also the ability to abuse the buff by building a castle and never moving also comes into how effective the army is and hence how much it's worth as it's not worth any points if you have to move out of it to hold objectives. So it's worth is also mission dependent.

Ice_can wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK so what you describe is a well costed model then? Balance revolves around how a model plays when used well, not when used poorly. As it stands he's a 400 point model who makes an entire build work, one that sees success at the highest levels of the game. He is not overcosted at all, he just might not be right for every single thing you may want to do with the codex as a whole.

The answer is incredibly simple don't use shonky aura buffs that can't be priced appropriately as it throws the points costing of the rest of the codex to heck in a handbasket. If they had stopped and thought about how to balance the codex with and without Bobby G for more than a nano second or maybe playtested the first codex of the most playtested edition. It's really poor game design when you reward players more for making bad match up choices.

Lol nope, that's not the answer because nothing you mentioned in this rant ever came into question at any point so far

The answer is "yes he's a strong unit"

Does Bobby G play like a 400 point model in a 1.5K point game no he doesn't. Does he play like a 400 point model at 3K or more No he doesn't. So the point stands at no points level will the aura buff be balanced as it's worth is too dependent on the rest of the list being built to exploit it. Also the ability to abuse the biff by building a castle and never moving also comes into how effective the army is and hence how much it's worth as it's not worth any points if you have to move out of it to hold objectives.

Maybe your point does stand. But at no stage did anyone bar yourself mention, disagree, or comment on that point.

This is entirely you injecting something unrelated to the discussion so you can bitch about game design.

What was in question was the claim that in competitive play, Roboute is too expensive for what he provides. The answer to that is quite simply, nah. He ain't. Maybe that's wrong and I'm all ears as to why, but talking about how well he is designed, or pointing at different game modes nobody plays, doesn't invalidate his gameplay strength in the one everyone does. So framing as that it's some sort of counter or even response to what I said is a fallacy.

I think his poor design is a part of the equation, though. His aura is too much of a force multiplier that it can only be "balanced" at it's highest level of synergy with units the SM can access.

He's really only worth 400 points if you pile a bunch of high rate of fire low-med Str shooting units around him, ideally ones that move and still fire without the normal penalties. Fire raptors and repulsers, namely.

You also pretty much have to go first in order to not lose any of these units and suffer a significant reduction of firepower, since he is taking up 400 points of the list. The low model count helps this though.

So sure, if you can meet all of those very specific criteria, he might be worth his points, but if you don't, he certainly isn't. That seems like a pretty big asterisk to put after the "yes he's worth 400 points."

His current cost feels like a bandaid until they can put in some time to rewrite his rules to something that isn't as difficult to balance in a more quantifiable way.

Realistically nothing scales quite as well as players tend to believe. Durability is something that changes drastically as point levels change and the ability for an expensive model to be taken off the board before it activates is very much a factor of how much stuff gets to attack it in one turn. It's worth noting that Guilliman's personal impact on the game can be a lot higher at lower point levels.

That said, he's a very problematic model, not necessarily because space marines are clearly designed around him, but because space marines are universally designed around him, but he's restricted to one specific flavor of something that comes in many, many flavors. I don't think that's a secret to anyone; just something that will get repeated until they get around to fixing it.

 Asherian Command wrote:

phydaux wrote:
So is the consensus that only Space Marines & Grey Knights are the only "bad" codexes, and GM learned from their mistakes via feedback and all subsequent Codexes have been decent?

The Space Marine Codex was the start of all releases and ever since then its been power creep, except for grey knights..

Space Marines nearly 85% of their list is unplayable.

Your bubble of visibility is very opaque. Necrons are worse than GK and came out much later.

valdier wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

phydaux wrote:
So is the consensus that only Space Marines & Grey Knights are the only "bad" codexes, and GM learned from their mistakes via feedback and all subsequent Codexes have been decent?

The Space Marine Codex was the start of all releases and ever since then its been power creep, except for grey knights..

Space Marines nearly 85% of their list is unplayable.

Your bubble of visibility is very opaque. Necrons are worse than GK and came out much later.

Necrons are 100% not worse than GK. They are vastly superior to GK.

 LunarSol wrote:
Realistically nothing scales quite as well as players tend to believe. Durability is something that changes drastically as point levels change and the ability for an expensive model to be taken off the board before it activates is very much a factor of how much stuff gets to attack it in one turn. It's worth noting that Guilliman's personal impact on the game can be a lot higher at lower point levels.

That said, he's a very problematic model, not necessarily because space marines are clearly designed around him, but because space marines are universally designed around him, but he's restricted to one specific flavor of something that comes in many, many flavors. I don't think that's a secret to anyone; just something that will get repeated until they get around to fixing it.

I think it is a problem brought forth by d6 being the dice to roll out come in w40k. if someone has +2inv or +3 with re-rolls on top of to hit mods, they become more or less invunerable. On the other hand something like a +4 or +5 sv, doesn't really matter unless someone plays games with 400-500 models.

Based on a fairly large ATC it would appear that marines are pretty much the trash tier...

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-atc-2018/

One person ran Grey Knights and found success. I wonder if it was 3 Imperial Knights and a Grey Knights warlord with tiny detachment lol

jcd386 wrote:I think his poor design is a part of the equation, though. His aura is too much of a force multiplier that it can only be "balanced" at it's highest level of synergy with units the SM can access.

He's really only worth 400 points if you pile a bunch of high rate of fire low-med Str shooting units around him, ideally ones that move and still fire without the normal penalties. Fire raptors and repulsers, namely.

You also pretty much have to go first in order to not lose any of these units and suffer a significant reduction of firepower, since he is taking up 400 points of the list. The low model count helps this though.

So sure, if you can meet all of those very specific criteria, he might be worth his points, but if you don't, he certainly isn't. That seems like a pretty big asterisk to put after the "yes he's worth 400 points."

His current cost feels like a bandaid until they can put in some time to rewrite his rules to something that isn't as difficult to balance in a more quantifiable way.

OK so you're arguing that he doesn't scale well at other points values? OK you may or may not be right I don't know I haven't played much at those values. If you're saying he's overpriced at competitive level 40k though you're just playingng badly. There's a reason he's so consistently taken over 400 points of more guns and that's what he does for an army.

bananathug wrote:Based on a fairly large ATC it would appear that marines are pretty much the trash tier...

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-atc-2018/

That's an absurd measure of anything for multiple reasons and if you used it to argue anything else you'd be laughed at. If I need to break it down why we don't measure an army by its performance at ATC as an average, I can, but I really hope I don't really have to.

You know, the argument that the 2200 point GT is a completely different meta that favors an expensive force multiplier like Guilliman is valid

But to then turn around and say that the ATC, which is a completely different meta where you can cherrypick your matchups and therefore favors skew lists even more, is a solid indicator of what is and isn't good in normal 40k isn't valid at all

 SHUPPET wrote:

jcd386 wrote:I think his poor design is a part of the equation, though. His aura is too much of a force multiplier that it can only be "balanced" at it's highest level of synergy with units the SM can access.

He's really only worth 400 points if you pile a bunch of high rate of fire low-med Str shooting units around him, ideally ones that move and still fire without the normal penalties. Fire raptors and repulsers, namely.

You also pretty much have to go first in order to not lose any of these units and suffer a significant reduction of firepower, since he is taking up 400 points of the list. The low model count helps this though.

So sure, if you can meet all of those very specific criteria, he might be worth his points, but if you don't, he certainly isn't. That seems like a pretty big asterisk to put after the "yes he's worth 400 points."

His current cost feels like a bandaid until they can put in some time to rewrite his rules to something that isn't as difficult to balance in a more quantifiable way.

OK so you're arguing that he doesn't scale well at other points values? OK you may or may not be right I don't know I haven't played much at those values. If you're saying he's overpriced at competitive level 40k though you're just playingng badly. There's a reason he's so consistently taken over 400 points of more guns and that's what he does for an army.

bananathug wrote:Based on a fairly large ATC it would appear that marines are pretty much the trash tier...

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-atc-2018/

That's an absurd measure of anything for multiple reasons and if you used it to argue anything else you'd be laughed at. If I need to break it down why we don't measure an army by its performance at ATC as an average, I can, but I really hope I don't really have to.

I'm arguing that having one hella broken character that increases the damage output of your models by up to 244% if they stand near him is very hard to balance, because his value has everything to do with the units around him. So either you are using the exact combo of units that makes him worth 400 points, or you aren't, and he isn't worth that. This doesn't help SM in general, it just helps one gimmicky list that uses a badly designed unit. (That being said, congrats to the guy who won with it. I can be happy for him and still want GW to fix Marines).

jcd386 wrote:

I'm arguing that having one hella broken character that increases the damage output of your models by up to 244% if they stand near him is very hard to balance, because his value has everything to do with the units around him. So either you are using the exact combo of units that makes him worth 400 points, or you aren't, and he isn't worth that. This doesn't help SM in general, it just helps one gimmicky list that uses a badly designed unit. (That being said, congrats to the guy who won with it. I can be happy for him and still want GW to fix Marines).

Agreed. Auras within *unlimited targets* that effect *pretty much everything* are problematic and near impossible to balance. There can be no correct `flat` point cost for the boat man, as he's either costed for the unit floor (he's not buffing anything) or the unit cap (he's buffing his extended family).

The ONLY way he can be balanced is if he costs a % of the points limit (something like, costs 200 + 20% of the points limit).

jcd386 wrote:

I'm arguing that having one hella broken character that increases the damage output of your models by up to 244% if they stand near him is very hard to balance, because his value has everything to do with the units around him. So either you are using the exact combo of units that makes him worth 400 points, or you aren't, and he isn't worth that. This doesn't help SM in general, it just helps one gimmicky list that uses a badly designed unit. (That being said, congrats to the guy who won with it. I can be happy for him and still want GW to fix Marines).

Ok, but at 2000 points you can most definitely fit enough units to make that worthwhile. And of course a unit restricted to one Chapter doesn't help SM in general. I didn't say that it helps the entire dex. I didn't even said it helped anyone. I just said Roboute is not overpriced in competitive games.

I'm unsure how saying "b-b-b-buh it's bad design tho!" counters anything I put forth. I didn't say it was good design. I didn't say every unit in SM is fine and every Chapter is playable. I didn't say any of the gak you guys are crying about.

I literally just said ROBOUTE GUILLIMAN is a well costed model COMPETITIVELY. In ITC he most definitely isn't too costly if used well. Point at his bad design all you want, I never even disagreed with that at all, and specifically clarified I'm not weighing in on that, because it doesn't have anything to do with what I said. If anything your arguments are supporting my point, he has to cost that much because of the value it can give out in a 2000 pts list by your own admission. Stop framing them as though it's an answer to my question or as though I said something I haven't.

The issue really isn't his buffs. The issue is that everything in the codex is priced like you're taking Ultramarines with Roboute in a 2000 point game, except you're playing above the original point limit.

Kinda like how Gladius functioned...

 Marmatag wrote:
One person ran Grey Knights and found success. I wonder if it was 3 Imperial Knights and a Grey Knights warlord with tiny detachment lol

The big list pack appears to contain two GK lists so i'm not sure which they are scoring.
One had a pair of grand master baby carriers, strikes, and a purgation squad supported by smashcaptains and deathwatch (David Ozawa)
The other was Voldus and Draigo with strikes, terminators, and a dreadknight supported by a small ultramarines detachment of assault cannon razorbacks (Dustin Housley)


One of the sororitas lists is 3 knights and a small unit of sisters though. The other four being dominion spam with celestine and allies (smashcaptain/shield captain/assassins/admech)

 SHUPPET wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

I'm arguing that having one hella broken character that increases the damage output of your models by up to 244% if they stand near him is very hard to balance, because his value has everything to do with the units around him. So either you are using the exact combo of units that makes him worth 400 points, or you aren't, and he isn't worth that. This doesn't help SM in general, it just helps one gimmicky list that uses a badly designed unit. (That being said, congrats to the guy who won with it. I can be happy for him and still want GW to fix Marines).

Ok, but at 2000 points you can most definitely fit enough units to make that worthwhile. And of course a unit restricted to one Chapter doesn't help SM in general. I didn't say that it helps the entire dex. I didn't even said it helped anyone. I just said Roboute is not overpriced in competitive games.

I'm unsure how saying "b-b-b-buh it's bad design tho!" counters anything I put forth. I didn't say it was good design. I didn't say every unit in SM is fine and every Chapter is playable. I didn't say any of the gak you guys are crying about.

I literally just said ROBOUTE GUILLIMAN is a well costed model COMPETITIVELY. In ITC he most definitely isn't too costly if used well. Point at his bad design all you want, I never even disagreed with that at all, and specifically clarified I'm not weighing in on that, because it doesn't have anything to do with what I said. If anything your arguments are supporting my point, he has to cost that much because of the value it can give out in a 2000 pts list by your own admission. Stop framing them as though it's an answer to my question or as though I said something I haven't.

It's possible to agree with your very one dimensional claim ("is he worth it? Yes!"), and then talk about why, in what specific cases it's true, what it's weaknesses are, if it's good game design, and if it helps the faction or even the game as a whole, and so on. If we're not allowed to expand upon or add some nuance to your somewhat black and white stance than I don't think we'd have as valuable a discussion.

jcd386 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

I'm arguing that having one hella broken character that increases the damage output of your models by up to 244% if they stand near him is very hard to balance, because his value has everything to do with the units around him. So either you are using the exact combo of units that makes him worth 400 points, or you aren't, and he isn't worth that. This doesn't help SM in general, it just helps one gimmicky list that uses a badly designed unit. (That being said, congrats to the guy who won with it. I can be happy for him and still want GW to fix Marines).

Ok, but at 2000 points you can most definitely fit enough units to make that worthwhile. And of course a unit restricted to one Chapter doesn't help SM in general. I didn't say that it helps the entire dex. I didn't even said it helped anyone. I just said Roboute is not overpriced in competitive games.

I'm unsure how saying "b-b-b-buh it's bad design tho!" counters anything I put forth. I didn't say it was good design. I didn't say every unit in SM is fine and every Chapter is playable. I didn't say any of the gak you guys are crying about.

I literally just said ROBOUTE GUILLIMAN is a well costed model COMPETITIVELY. In ITC he most definitely isn't too costly if used well. Point at his bad design all you want, I never even disagreed with that at all, and specifically clarified I'm not weighing in on that, because it doesn't have anything to do with what I said. If anything your arguments are supporting my point, he has to cost that much because of the value it can give out in a 2000 pts list by your own admission. Stop framing them as though it's an answer to my question or as though I said something I haven't.

It's possible to agree with your very one dimensional claim ("is he worth it? Yes!"), and then talk about why, in what specific cases it's true, what it's weaknesses are, if it's good game design, and if it helps the faction or even the game as a whole, and so on. If we're not allowed to expand upon or add some nuance to your somewhat black and white stance than I don't think we'd have as valuable a discussion.

That's absolutely fine to expand upon my statement, and kick off discussion upon his design... that's not at all what was done though.


It's quite unmistakeably framed as a counter to my statement, not an expansion upon it, and I even point this out, multiple times. Here's where you jumped in with this post, also quite clearly framed as though it's countering something I'm saying



If you want to go ahead and bitch and cry all day about RG's design hurting other Chapters or boxing Ultramarines into a mono build, or whatever else, feel free to, I'm not interesting in rehashing that topic for the millionth time. What I was quite definitively saying is that RG is costed at what he needs to be for competitive play, in response to someone implying that he wasn't. That's simply all there was to my statement.

Yes he probably is. The reason some people don't think he is, is because they likely aren't piling enough of the right units around him, like fire raptors and repulsors. For anyone else trying to build a more typical marine list + Roboute, he likely isn't worth 400 points.

So I'm just adding "if you take exactly the right units" to the statement "he is worth 400 points." You could argue that this goes for most units and army builds, and to an extent you'd be right, but not to the extent that I'm talking about with RG.

jcd386 wrote:
Yes he probably is. The reason some people don't think he is, is because they likely aren't piling enough of the right units around him, like fire raptors and repulsors. For anyone else trying to build a more typical marine list + Roboute, he likely isn't worth 400 points.

So I'm just adding "if you take exactly the right units" to the statement "he is worth 400 points." You could argue that this goes for most units and army builds, and to an extent you'd be right, but not to the extent that I'm talking about with RG.

I agree with that man, I'm just saying though, he's definitely not an overcosted unit, he works at his current point value for what you CAN do with him. Should an army that's supposed to be built on versatility be able to do much more? I think so, and it's kind of a shame, but it's also got some great units inside and there is some real hyperbole thrown around too often concerning the dex

 SHUPPET wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Yes he probably is. The reason some people don't think he is, is because they likely aren't piling enough of the right units around him, like fire raptors and repulsors. For anyone else trying to build a more typical marine list + Roboute, he likely isn't worth 400 points.

So I'm just adding "if you take exactly the right units" to the statement "he is worth 400 points." You could argue that this goes for most units and army builds, and to an extent you'd be right, but not to the extent that I'm talking about with RG.

I agree with that man, I'm just saying though, he's definitely not an overcosted unit, he works at his current point value for what you CAN do with him. Should an army that's supposed to be built on versatility be able to do much more? I think so, and it's kind of a shame, but it's also got some great units inside and there is some real hyperbole thrown around too often concerning the dex

I don't think he works at his current point level. Outside of a few isolated cases, Ultramarines aren't doing very well, and many players are using Calgar because more bodies really is king, and frankly some of the stratagems are just flat better as Raven Guard. For instance, if you're building a list to take advantage of double hellfire /w single hb devs they're just better as Raven Guard, because they're not even rolling to wound.

I fail to see why the ATC results are any less valid than this snowflake 2200 random extra rules results.

Sample size of the ATC is larger, many more games were played.

The players at the ATC are probably better (play more games, more organized teams). Many nationally ranked.

The format of the ATC encourages to put together an army that only features it's strengths and then leverage those strengths as much as possible by choosing opponents/tables. Seems to be a much better test of an armies best than relying on random match-ups on random boards.

An average of all players of a factions scores probably represent the abilities of that faction rather than one player.

Guilliman isn't viable at top competitive tables because he creates too many auto-lose situations. Pretty much going second against a high fire-power list he loses because he turns glass pea-shooters into glass cannons. That 300 point unit of hell blasters is now effectively a 400 point unit that hasn't gained any defense and dies just as easy to DE blaster fire.

There are no great units in the SM dex because if there was a powerful combo that was really good at something it would have shown and excelled at a tournament (ATC) which is all about bringing the most busted stuff in your dex and using it vs it's best match-up.

I'm curious what units you are calling great and in what codex? Captain smash-face is great in the BA dex but mediocre in all the rest. Hellblasters are good for DA but vanilla not so much. Dev squads are pretty good, scouts are passable, storm ravens would be good if they didn't pay the transport tax, tigarius is a solid unit but is held back by mediocre (at best) marine powers, guilliman is a good unit but is held back by the limitations of the rest of the vanilla dex, both forms of inceptors are too fragile and are hurt badly by the new deepstrike rule (although the DA plasma ones can put a hurt on something but they only last one turn.) Maybe scout bikers and raven guard aggressors and calling them great is pushing it at best as they are mostly situationally effective and are hard countered by the best armies out there (all that 2d shooting...)

I'm not seeing anything great. I'd consider reapers, shining spears, ravagers, grots, 2++ bullgryn, eldar flyers, wave serpants, flyrants, tau commanders, knight Castilians, custode bikes, demon princes, cultists, guardsmen among others great. SM just don't compete with these types of units.

 Marmatag wrote:
One person ran Grey Knights and found success. I wonder if it was 3 Imperial Knights and a Grey Knights warlord with tiny detachment lol

The Mod posted the list in the comments! It a strange list for sure. 50% grey knight then approximately ~25% blood angels, 25% deathwatch. Seems to spam Psilencers

(Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition) [122 PL, 2000pts]
Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Grey Knights) [56 PL, 1004pts]
HQ [28 PL, 570pts]
Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight [14 PL, 285pts]
Selections: * No Psychic Power Selected *, Dreadfist [25pts], Dreadknight teleporter [10pts], Gatling Psilencer [20pts], Heavy
Psycannon [30pts], Nemesis Greatsword [10pts]
Grand Master in Nemesis Dreadknight [14 PL, 285pts]
Selections: * No Psychic Power Selected *, Dreadfist [25pts], Dreadknight teleporter [10pts], Gatling Psilencer [20pts], Heavy
Psycannon [30pts], Nemesis Greatsword [10pts]
Troops [21 PL, 321pts]
Strike Squad [7 PL, 107pts]
Selections: * No Psychic Power Selected *
3x Grey Knight (Falchions) [63pts]
Selections: 3x Storm Bolter [6pts]
Grey Knight (Psilencer) [23pts]
Selections: Psilencer [4pts]
Grey Knight Justicar [21pts]
Selections: Storm bolter [2pts], Two Nemesis Falchions
Strike Squad [7 PL, 107pts]
Selections: * No Psychic Power Selected *
3x Grey Knight (Falchions) [63pts]
Selections: 3x Storm Bolter [6pts]
Grey Knight (Psilencer) [23pts]
Selections: Psilencer [4pts]
Grey Knight Justicar [21pts]
Selections: Storm bolter [2pts], Two Nemesis Falchions
Strike Squad [7 PL, 107pts]
Selections: * No Psychic Power Selected *
Grey Knight (Psilencer) [23pts]
Selections: Psilencer [4pts]
3x Grey Knight (Warding Stave) [63pts]
Selections: 3x Storm Bolter [6pts]
Grey Knight Justicar [21pts]
Selections: Nemesis Warding Stave, Storm bolter [2pts]

Heavy Support [7 PL, 113pts]

Purgation Squad [7 PL, 113pts]
Selections: * No Psychic Power Selected *
4x Purgator (Psilencer) [92pts]
Selections: 4x Psilencer [16pts]
Purgator Justicar [21pts]
Selections: Storm bolter [2pts], Two Nemesis Falchions

Battalion Detachment +5CP (Imperium - Blood Angels) [28 PL, 434pts]
HQ [12 PL, 258pts]
Captain [6 PL, 129pts]
Selections: Jump Pack [1 PL, 19pts], Storm shield [15pts], Thunder hammer [21pts]
Captain [6 PL, 129pts]
Selections: Jump Pack [1 PL, 19pts], Storm shield [15pts], Thunder hammer [21pts]
Troops [16 PL, 176pts]
Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout Sergeant [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun, Chainsword
Scout Squad [4 PL, 55pts]
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout Sergeant [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun, Chainsword

Scout Squad [8 PL, 66pts]
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun
Scout Sergeant [11pts]
Selections: Boltgun, Chainsword

Patrol Detachment (Imperium - Deathwatch) [38 PL, 562pts]
HQ [14 PL, 242pts]
Librarian with Jump Pack [7 PL, 123pts]
Selections: 1) Veil of Time, 2) Might of Heroes, Bolt Pistol [1pts], Force axe [10pts], Jump Pack [1 PL], The Beacon Angelis
Watch Captain [7 PL, 119pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Jump Pack [2 PL, 19pts], Storm Bolter [4pts], Thunder hammer [21pts], Warlord
Troops [24 PL, 320pts]
Intercessors [6 PL, 120pts]
Intercessor [1 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Bolt rifle [1pts]
Intercessor [1 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Bolt rifle [1pts]
Intercessor [1 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Bolt rifle [1pts]
Intercessor [1 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Bolt rifle [1pts]
Intercessor [1 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Bolt rifle [1pts]
Intercessor Sergeant [1 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Bolt Pistol [1pts], Bolt rifle [1pts], Chainsword

Veterans [9 PL, 100pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Watch Sergeant [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veterans [9 PL, 100pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Veteran [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]
Watch Sergeant [2 PL, 20pts]
Selections: Chainsword, Storm Bolter [4pts]

Let's put aside any disagreement for a moment and just marvel at how terrible that amy list format is.

You're just saying that because you're a [faction]-lover you silly [unit]-user. Obviously, the format is just fine. If you really understood GK, you'd see how brilliant it is!

At this point, I kinda want scouts and captains deleted from the BA codex. Just to prove a point. This is just as dumb as Admech renting an entire formation of BA drop pods.

Martel732 wrote:
At this point, I kinda want scouts and captains deleted from the BA codex. Just to prove a point. This is just as dumb as Admech renting and entire formation of BA drop pods.

Literally they don't even need to remove the captains - just a single relic - and stratagem and the entire army crumbles and falls apart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
Let's put aside any disagreement for a moment and just marvel at how terrible that amy list format is.

Yeah it's quite possibly the worst I've ever seen.

jcd386 wrote:
Let's put aside any disagreement for a moment and just marvel at how terrible that amy list format is.

That's what happens when you copy paste from Battlescribe. I LOVE Battlescribe but it makes some of you guys super lazy.

I actually detest Battlescribe in general. I can write out a list by hand far quicker than clicking through all the options. I can write 15 X CC scouts on paper and be done.

And then yes, there is the export function. UGH.

Martel732 wrote:
I actually detest Battlescribe in general. I can write out a list by hand far quicker than clicking through all the options. I can write 15 X CC scouts on paper and be done.

And then yes, there is the export function. UGH.

I love it as I have severe carpal tunnel and tendonitis so writing can actually be super aggravating after even 10 minutes.

Well, I guess that's a thing. Using a cell phone/tablet with the tiny screen and all the poking and dragging is worse for me than just writing. Weird.

I like the app more, in large part because I'll add a bunch of units to it, then drop units off until I'm in about the right point range. That kind of agility takes a bit longer with pen & paper, when you're making your list on the fly.

I can scribble pretty fast. Plus, I have the costs of everything from BA I can actually use memorized, lol.

Martel732 wrote:
I can scribble pretty fast. Plus, I have the costs of everything from BA I can actually use memorized, lol.

captain smash and scouts what more does the BA codex contain? It's like tge marine dex without Bobby G sarcasm of course

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Let's put aside any disagreement for a moment and just marvel at how terrible that amy list format is.

That's what happens when you copy paste from Battlescribe. I LOVE Battlescribe but it makes some of you guys super lazy.

I use battle scribe to make lists sometimes - but if I am going to post a list to Dakka... I just type it out. We aren't supposed to post points anyways.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I can scribble pretty fast. Plus, I have the costs of everything from BA I can actually use memorized, lol.

captain smash and scouts what more does the BA codex contain? It's like tge marine dex without Bobby G sarcasm of course

A bunch of gak no one with a brain would ever field.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Let's put aside any disagreement for a moment and just marvel at how terrible that amy list format is.

That's what happens when you copy paste from Battlescribe. I LOVE Battlescribe but it makes some of you guys super lazy.

I use battle scribe to make lists sometimes - but if I am going to post a list to Dakka... I just type it out. We aren't supposed to post points anyways.

Haha didn't realize the list format would cause so much discussion. I just copy pasted it from the article where the mod posted the players list. to answer marmatags question. Didn't mean to derail the conversation so much....

Ice_can wrote:
captain smash and scouts what more does the BA codex contain? It's like tge marine dex without Bobby G sarcasm of course

Sang guard and death company, mephiston and lemartes - the HQs in general.

Another question might be what can the vanilla codex do beyond named characters and chapter tactics in the face of the BA and DA marine +1 books.

 Marmatag wrote:
One person ran Grey Knights and found success. I wonder if it was 3 Imperial Knights and a Grey Knights warlord with tiny detachment lol

Grey Knights are well suited to the ATC format, where the team can pick match up to help them avoid playing against Daemons.

A.T. wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
captain smash and scouts what more does the BA codex contain? It's like tge marine dex without Bobby G sarcasm of course

Sang guard and death company, mephiston and lemartes - the HQs in general.

Another question might be what can the vanilla codex do beyond named characters and chapter tactics in the face of the BA and DA marine +1 books.

DC and sanguinary guard are now useless. As are lemartes and mephy.

I would really love to see how they selected that GK list and for what match-ups. Obviously that is not a take-all-comers list.

 Marmatag wrote:
I would really love to see how they selected that GK list and for what match-ups. Obviously that is not a take-all-comers list.

It's got pretty nice dakka. The list is basically all storm bolters and psilencers. Sounds like a decent attacking list you run into a horde, the horde players picks it because lolGK, and then they got shot off the board.

I don't think IG would give a gak about that list. AP 0? LOL. Got my 4 point 5+ dudes. Good luck GK.