Hi everyone, I just want to talk about the Big FAQ 2.
Yes, there are good parts to the FAQ. I'll run through the main parts of it as presented in the Warhammer Community article, and feel free to disagree with me - just please don't be offensive.
Battle Brothers is official now, which is good.
The Fly nerf, which is basicallt FLY that can only work in the Movement phase, is terrible, however. Yes, they should not be able to get 0" charges off, but that doesn't mean they should not be able to charge OVER BUBBLE WRAP. As it stands, my Harlequins army will run into conscript bubble wrap, which will fall back and tanks behind it will blow the assault up. Then rinse and repeat. The intention is good, but this needs to be addressed.
From what I gather around the internet, Blood Angels players are riled up and utterly annoyed at what they consider to be the death of them - the new Tactical Reserves rule.
This states that you cannot Deep Strike ANYTHING Turn 1, even in your deployment zone - including Genestealer Cults. They still have to be on the board by Turn 3, though. Previously, they could Deep Strike in the Deployment Zone.
Obviously, the FLY nerf hit them pretty hard, if not worse, as well. Another reason this needs to be addressed.
There is a new Stratagem available - Prepared Positions. This puts every single unit (except Titanic ones) in your deployment zone officially in cover for the entirety of Turn 1. This strat can only be used if you go second.
Tactical Restraint is the final one. This rule states that you are capable of only recovering 1CP per Battle Round, regardless of source, unless you have something like Player of the Twilight.
So, in my opinion, this FAQ buffs AM. Yes, the CP farms are nerfed. General consensus, however, seems to be that it doesn't really matter to soup lists as the sheer amount of CP they start with is the problem.
I personally think that we will see bubble wrap lists appear for the AM. Lots of tanks, wrapped up in lots of conscripts. no way to charge the tanks behind for a couple of turns due to the mistake with the FLY rule, so the Tanks have a decent chance.
Eldar seem to get relativly untouched. No idea about the high end tournament players, they will probablly change some stuff in their lists. But locally non of the eldar players we have are in a rush to buy new stuff.
No idea what BA players are going to do post FAQ. I hope for them that some sort of list is doable out of their codex. And when I say list, I mean an actual one, not taking an ultramarine list and playing a weaker clone of it.
tournament players, specially those high end ones seem to be happy. The rest as long as their army didn't get nerfed too much, seem to be ok with the changes too. Plus there is orc players who ignore the FAQ till their codex drops. So going by population of all people playing, the FAQ seems at worse recived as ok.
Karol wrote: Eldar seem to get relativly untouched. No idea about the high end tournament players, they will probablly change some stuff in their lists. But locally non of the eldar players we have are in a rush to buy new stuff.
No idea what BA players are going to do post FAQ. I hope for them that some sort of list is doable out of their codex. And when I say list, I mean an actual one, not taking an ultramarine list and playing a weaker clone of it.
tournament players, specially those high end ones seem to be happy. The rest as long as their army didn't get nerfed too much, seem to be ok with the changes too. Plus there is orc players who ignore the FAQ till their codex drops. So going by population of all people playing, the FAQ seems at worse recived as ok.
I hope you're right. Perhaps I'm just annoyed because the only good thing about Harlequins - the fact that I can charge over bubble wrap - got removed, thus making me on-par tournament-scene as something like Necrons.
Maybe we'll get some consolation in Chapter Approved (when'll they fix the ridiculous Neuro Disruptor?) but I'm not too hopeful. Should they implement this rule fully, I should hope that they get rid of the mistake.
Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
Dropping in with a casual players input, im quite pleased with the faq.
Limiting the CP regen is one of my favourites. The amount of games ive played where an opponent had spammed stratagems and by turn 4 still have their starting amount or close to it has been a real downer. Hoping this levels that particular playing field a bit more.
The change to fly diesnt really affect me. My only fly unit (seraphim) dont want to be in combat. I only learned the other day that Celestine could jump over units in charge because someone tried to pull it on me (rolled snake eyes, heheh) and i was interested to see how this would chamge the way i field her as i had alwats treated her as not able to jump over things in charges. Now this change has come so it makes no difference to me as its just back to the way ive alwats played it.
New stratagem is a god send. A little more able to handle first turn shooting. Thank you very much.
I am an employee at a store, and I play a metric ton of 40k games, both to introduce people to the game and as part of our gaming group. In my non-introduction 40k games, I have yet to lose with my Guard army in six months. This FAQ only makes me better(I wasn't relying on CP growing anyway), and the general consensus amongst the group here (and myself) is that the FAQ is mostly dirt trash.
My Sisters army is harmed if only because it is very elite and required being able to do damage turn one. The second player's ability to improve their survivability against my already short ranged, hard-pressed shooting is very annoying.
Indeed, smaller/elite armies are just smacked in the jaw by the new strategem. They tend to go firs and the strategem is only available to the player who goes second in the first battle roundt; this is an indirect huge buff to Hordes in an edition where Hordes are king.
We sold some Infinity starter sets, so maybe some will start playing that.
Slipspace wrote: Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
Were you just not able to make the charge roll? Not sure I understand here.
On another point, I definitely don't understand this community's hatred for allies. Will never get it...
Were you just not able to make the charge roll? Not sure I understand here.
On another point, I definitely don't understand this community's hatred for allies. Will never get it...
If I had to make some guesses, it comes down to the following:
1- Not all factions have access to them. While this means I think such codexes tend to stand on their own better, they fall to the wayside against Soup.
2- Without them, large swathes of the Imperial line are tremendously weaker Codex to Codex compared to others. Soup or die becomes reality, which is annoying to people who live certain factions.
3- While in theory opening up army construction, clear efficiencies and winners actually winnow down 'competitive' options. This is just boring.
Slipspace wrote: Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
Were you just not able to make the charge roll? Not sure I understand here.
On another point, I definitely don't understand this community's hatred for allies. Will never get it...
I can't remember the exact rule, but I believe the problem is that non-infantry models can't walk through ruins/buildings. They have to fly up and land where they want to go (if they have the ability to fly). But now that you can't fly in the charge phase, it means that hiding in ruins will completely prevent them from being able to attack you.
Also means that a cheap blob of 10 conscripts, can stand in a line in front of a tank, and totally prevent the heldrake 500 meters above them from diving down and attacking.
IG troops are once again (well, they already were, but now even more so) the best troops in the game.
Which is why everyone hates allies. I mean it's more specific than that, noone minds allies for Eldar or Chaos really, it's just the Imperial allies that everyone hates, because they're too cheap and too powerful. To the point that GW keep putting out changes to nerf them... except the nerfs always end up hurting other armies way more than they hurt the Imperials, which means that they remain the strongest option.
Slipspace wrote: Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
Were you just not able to make the charge roll? Not sure I understand here.
On another point, I definitely don't understand this community's hatred for allies. Will never get it...
I couldn't even attempt the charge. Bikes and Beasts (which is what Wraiths are) can't go through the walls of ruins like infantry can and can't go up levels in ruins either, though flying units used to be able to get around that. The new rules for Fly simply made my units inoperative - you no longer use your flying movement in the charge phase, only the Movement phase. If your flying units are infantry that's annoying, but if they're not infantry they are now massively limited in what they can do. Given GW's inability to understand what the problem is with soup, I'm not confident they understand the ramifications of the rules they're changing.
Yeah, the Fly change is the only bit I dislike (bubble wrap was already absurdly annoying, this makes it next level irritating) but it's pretty much offset for me by the prepared position stratagem. That is 100% what 8th has needed since release.
Let's think about it another way... the FLY keyword was incredibly powerful. This change makes units without FLY and units with FLY a little closer in power and utility.
Is that bad?
One of the weird things to me is that GW keep releasing models without FLY. There's a metric ton of footslogging units that have come out recently. Perhaps they think infantry and flying dudes should be closer in power and utility?
BTW forget the models you own - nobody gives a flying sh1t about them when balancing/amending the rules
The combination of the CP generation nerf and many of the most popular stratagems going up in CP cost...
And here's the thing, many of those things that would give you a CP only give it to you on a 5+ or 6+. People will still take them because getting 1 CP a battle round is better than getting 0, and you could fail several rolls before you actually get the benefit of that CP farm anyway. It only stops people from getting 3+ CP in a battle round from hot rolling. But getting those 4-6 CP (depending on battle length) on top of the 20 you've already gotten from your detachments, still means you have plenty to spend on all those OP stratagems.
Silentz wrote: Let's think about it another way... the FLY keyword was incredibly powerful. This change makes units without FLY and units with FLY a little closer in power and utility.
Is that bad?
One of the weird things to me is that GW keep releasing models without FLY. There's a metric ton of footslogging units that have come out recently. Perhaps they think infantry and flying dudes should be closer in power and utility?
BTW forget the models you own - nobody gives a flying sh1t about them when balancing/amending the rules
Fly has been very strong this edition, but it is good in many different ways that don't apply evenly to the units that have it.
-Units with Fly and a primary ranged weapon use it mainly to fall back without being tied in CC. That's a very strong counter to a very strong core rule.
-Units with Fly and a primary melee weapon used it to jump over enemy models to better position for long charges, making room for other chargers, and circling enemies. A very powerful counter to screening with a gap between units.
-Units with both types of weapons get more out of the keyword and should be charged for it more than pure melee or ranged.
-Units with Fly that take up a large space and are rarely in the front line use it to avoid environmental damage (which I haven't seen anyone playing with since dangerous terrain is less obvious than 7th but there are sill entries in the brb about it) or navigate obstacles that would prevent movement like allied models or scratch terrain.
So yes fly is powerful, moreso for some than others. For example CSM raptors like being able to tie enemies and then fall back to shoot with special weapons while warp talons can only fight in CC. The difference in usefulness of Fly might be why raptors are 2ppm higher base then warp talons. Finally if they can't jump over enemies and aren't huge models (infantry even, so ruins shenanigans don't matter) what is the use of fly on them?
I played my first games today with the new FAQ. The first game, nothing of note relating to the FAQ came up. The second game, I was testing for a big event and I requested to play against IGcp battery/IK. A conga line of guardsmen almost stopped my DP from charging the Dominus. Just a line of little dudes straight across.
I had to use my Helverins to clear the way, thanks to rolling poorly I had to use both Helverins. I was not a fan of having to use the Helverins to kill guardsmen.
It's a very awkward, very poorly written rule. I'm not sure if they were trying to target DP's/BA captains with this rule. But it worked, they made fly charging not a thing anymore.
It makes me reconsider running DP's at all.
Silentz wrote: Let's think about it another way... the FLY keyword was incredibly powerful. This change makes units without FLY and units with FLY a little closer in power and utility.
Is that bad?
One of the weird things to me is that GW keep releasing models without FLY. There's a metric ton of footslogging units that have come out recently. Perhaps they think infantry and flying dudes should be closer in power and utility?
BTW forget the models you own - nobody gives a flying sh1t about them when balancing/amending the rules
The real problem here is that anything CC focused that's bigger than infantry cannot interact with anything hiding in a building. FLY was a bandaid to get around that, but that's just been removed. Result: your Guardsmen hiding in a ruin are now completely immune to that Bloodthirster just outside the building, completely ignoring the fact that in reality that Bloodthirster would just grab a handful of Guardsmen out of the building with each strike, easily destroying any walls or bars between it and it's prey, and crush them into red paste. Or it would just smash the entire building causing it to collapse on top of the Guardsmen.
My personal solution would be to introduce rules that make terrain destructible (just give them a T, W and Armor save depending on size) and (possible) adverse affect if you're in them or in close proximity when they collapse/ explode so as to introduce some risk in hiding inside or behind them. Currently hiding in a building gives a massive advantage and no penalty whatsoever and IMO that needs to change.
As for flying over screening units during a charge, simply let the charging unit take a penalty to charge distance. You need extra energy to reach the extra height required to jump over them so it would make logical sense (as most FLY keyword users basically move by making huge jetpack- or wing-assisted jumps, barring actual planes and stuff like Heldrakes.). Disallowing jump-charging completely just makes screens stupidly strong.
That would be fool hardy considering they're still quite powerful and they do move quickly without wings.
Well, the biggest reason to take them is still their increased CC prowess over a standard Chaos Lord, and their former ability to mostly ignore screens. If you want a Psyker Sorcerers are far better, and for the reroll aura Chaos Lords are more cost-effective. The Daemon Prince is, for all intents and purposes, a beatstick, and it's ability to perform that role has just been severely neutered.
As has been said before, I hardly imagine GW has even thought of the huge ramifications that this rule has, it was a nerf solely aimed at Smash Captains that could one-shot a Knight T1 while burning a ton of CP to do so but the only thing it really achieved is rendering the only viable non-infantry CC units (with the FLY keyword) completely unusable. And with that buffing shooting EVEN MORE, in most cases CC already was inferior to shooting.
Pandabeer wrote: As has been said before, I hardly imagine GW has even thought of the huge ramifications that this rule has, it was a nerf solely aimed at Smash Captains that could one-shot a Knight T1 while burning a ton of CP to do so but the only thing it really achieved is rendering the only viable non-infantry CC units (with the FLY keyword) completely unusable. And with that buffing shooting EVEN MORE, in most cases CC already was inferior to shooting.
Apparently, according to the community article, it was to stop 0" charges from DS by abusing the way you ignored vertical distances, but knowing GW it was likely a combination of factors that came down to them applying it this way.
Pandabeer wrote: As has been said before, I hardly imagine GW has even thought of the huge ramifications that this rule has, it was a nerf solely aimed at Smash Captains that could one-shot a Knight T1 while burning a ton of CP to do so but the only thing it really achieved is rendering the only viable non-infantry CC units (with the FLY keyword) completely unusable. And with that buffing shooting EVEN MORE, in most cases CC already was inferior to shooting.
Apparently, according to the community article, it was to stop 0" charges from DS by abusing the way you ignored vertical distances, but knowing GW it was likely a combination of factors that came down to them applying it this way.
Except the rule does nothing to stop that. You can still make 0" charges from DS, you just can't fly over other models to do so.
Pandabeer wrote: As has been said before, I hardly imagine GW has even thought of the huge ramifications that this rule has, it was a nerf solely aimed at Smash Captains that could one-shot a Knight T1 while burning a ton of CP to do so but the only thing it really achieved is rendering the only viable non-infantry CC units (with the FLY keyword) completely unusable. And with that buffing shooting EVEN MORE, in most cases CC already was inferior to shooting.
Apparently, according to the community article, it was to stop 0" charges from DS by abusing the way you ignored vertical distances, but knowing GW it was likely a combination of factors that came down to them applying it this way.
Except the rule does nothing to stop that. You can still make 0" charges from DS, you just can't fly over other models to do so.
You no longer ignore terrain or vertical movement like you did when charging, so no you can't do a 0" charge.
Unless your Reivers or Grey Knight Interceptors (depending on their rules).
Pandabeer wrote: As has been said before, I hardly imagine GW has even thought of the huge ramifications that this rule has, it was a nerf solely aimed at Smash Captains that could one-shot a Knight T1 while burning a ton of CP to do so but the only thing it really achieved is rendering the only viable non-infantry CC units (with the FLY keyword) completely unusable. And with that buffing shooting EVEN MORE, in most cases CC already was inferior to shooting.
Apparently, according to the community article, it was to stop 0" charges from DS by abusing the way you ignored vertical distances, but knowing GW it was likely a combination of factors that came down to them applying it this way.
Except the rule does nothing to stop that. You can still make 0" charges from DS, you just can't fly over other models to do so.
You no longer ignore terrain or vertical movement like you did when charging, so no you can't do a 0" charge.
Unless your Reivers or Grey Knight Interceptors (depending on their rules).
Oh, I see they removed that FAQ. Interesting stuff. I wish it was a little clearer when they removed entries from the FAQs.
chimeara wrote: I played my first games today with the new FAQ. The first game, nothing of note relating to the FAQ came up. The second game, I was testing for a big event and I requested to play against IGcp battery/IK. A conga line of guardsmen almost stopped my DP from charging the Dominus. Just a line of little dudes straight across.
I had to use my Helverins to clear the way, thanks to rolling poorly I had to use both Helverins. I was not a fan of having to use the Helverins to kill guardsmen.
It's a very awkward, very poorly written rule. I'm not sure if they were trying to target DP's/BA captains with this rule. But it worked, they made fly charging not a thing anymore.
It makes me reconsider running DP's at all.
1) So you're complaining about shooting up infantry with what's essentially an anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle weapon?
2) Something prevents you from simply flying over those IG in the movement step? And THEN charging the Dominus?
3) Well, since you were testing for an upcoming event, I guess you learned that you're going to have to modify your attack plan. So it was a successful test.
Slipspace wrote: Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
The thing to do here is to slow down, go back and re-read the rules again. The rules interactions have changed so you have to go back to the beginning.
Read the rules on ruins on page 248 again. Can your Wraiths, Barges and Tomb Blades Fly? Note the bold text, that means that you should check if they have the Fly keyword. Yes they do.
Now look at the rules change on Fly. Only in the movement phase do you ignore intervening models and terrain, you no longer ignore these things in the charge phase. The Fly keyword is in no way removed, only those specific effects of the Fly keyword outside of the Movement phase. They still have the Fly keyword, the restriction on ending moves on ground level still does not apply to them in any phase of the game in which they move.
So each of those units still has the ability to go to higher levels of ruins whether in the movement phase or the charge phase. What has changed is that now they must pay the movement cost for doing so - typically that will be an additional 3" required on charging up to the first level of ruins. That definitely makes Fly assault units a bit less good because they now need to roll the same distance to make the charge as anything else but it does not invalidate them.
Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.
The way that people talk about Blood Angels you would think that they had Jump Packs baked into the base cost of every single model in their codex and all shooting options had been removed. Neither of those is actually the case and my reading of the codex was that it is a pretty balanced all-round Marine force with a bit of extra oomph in the fight phase and a couple of extra units well placed to take advantage of that. BA will tend to behave more like other marines in general now, that is not super great for BA players because generic marines are not in a super great position in top tournament play but their howls of rage at having their whole codex rendered unplayable just look like the usual over-reaction to change.
The prevalence of cheap chaff and the Fly nerf is essentially the nightmare scenario for BA and daemon players, I cannot imagine the frustration of being a Daemon player having to against a gunline with heavy weapons standing on top of ruins and chaffs lined up at the bottom.
ShaneMarsh wrote: I am an employee at a store, and I play a metric ton of 40k games, both to introduce people to the game and as part of our gaming group. In my non-introduction 40k games, I have yet to lose with my Guard army in six months. This FAQ only makes me better(I wasn't relying on CP growing anyway), and the general consensus amongst the group here (and myself) is that the FAQ is mostly dirt trash.
My Sisters army is harmed if only because it is very elite and required being able to do damage turn one. The second player's ability to improve their survivability against my already short ranged, hard-pressed shooting is very annoying.
Indeed, smaller/elite armies are just smacked in the jaw by the new strategem. They tend to go firs and the strategem is only available to the player who goes second in the first battle roundt; this is an indirect huge buff to Hordes in an edition where Hordes are king.
We sold some Infinity starter sets, so maybe some will start playing that.
Sisters is kind of a wash TBH +1 to save only makes a difference to melta is you were already rocking a 3+ or better and that's really the only thing you were getting to hit with first turn. Sure some tanks will get a 6+ they didn't have before but that's not really that big of a deal. In exchange you can mitigate how weak sisters tend to be to alphastrike themselves a decent amount, especially for our infantry.
Slipspace wrote: Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
The thing to do here is to slow down, go back and re-read the rules again. The rules interactions have changed so you have to go back to the beginning.
Read the rules on ruins on page 248 again. Can your Wraiths, Barges and Tomb Blades Fly? Note the bold text, that means that you should check if they have the Fly keyword. Yes they do.
Now look at the rules change on Fly. Only in the movement phase do you ignore intervening models and terrain, you no longer ignore these things in the charge phase. The Fly keyword is in no way removed, only those specific effects of the Fly keyword outside of the Movement phase. They still have the Fly keyword, the restriction on ending moves on ground level still does not apply to them in any phase of the game in which they move.
So each of those units still has the ability to go to higher levels of ruins whether in the movement phase or the charge phase. What has changed is that now they must pay the movement cost for doing so - typically that will be an additional 3" required on charging up to the first level of ruins. That definitely makes Fly assault units a bit less good because they now need to roll the same distance to make the charge as anything else but it does not invalidate them.
Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.
The way that people talk about Blood Angels you would think that they had Jump Packs baked into the base cost of every single model in their codex and all shooting options had been removed. Neither of those is actually the case and my reading of the codex was that it is a pretty balanced all-round Marine force with a bit of extra oomph in the fight phase and a couple of extra units well placed to take advantage of that. BA will tend to behave more like other marines in general now, that is not super great for BA players because generic marines are not in a super great position in top tournament play but their howls of rage at having their whole codex rendered unplayable just look like the usual over-reaction to change.
I read this as his opponent had units on the bottom floor he didn't want to charge and units on the top floor he DID, which of course you can't do anymore. Can't go over top of the ground floor guys. Under the new FAQ if you have a unit under a unit, the top unit cannot be charged by something that has fly, regardless of them being on different floors. Unless you can somehow find a way to move around or through them that doesn't take you within an inch.
The problem your last paragraph runs into is: BA are actually much, much worse at shooting than generic marines on the simple basis of not having the same buffing characters and army special rules that Ultramarines and to a lesser extent Ravenguard have. When both armies work similarly but the benefits of having access to a moderately superior smash captain(Generic smash captains are no joke either), and slightly above average CQC units(weakened quite a bit by the FAQ changes) doesn't outweigh Guillamen or universal -1 to hit outside of 12", Blood Angels basically become Iron hands or Black Templars or Imperial fists. Not terrible, but why not just take Ultras or RG?
It if you have guys on top of ruins and guys on the ground floor, i will just charge climbing the walls without ever having to go over the ground floor model's bases. Where is the problem?
It if you have guys on top of ruins and guys on the ground floor, i will just charge climbing the walls without ever having to go over the ground floor model's bases. Where is the problem?
Depends on how it's laid out. You can't go within 1" of the ground floor models soif they're immediately on the other side of the wall then it won't be possible.
Unless of course you declare against them too, then you can go within 1".
A lot of factors anyway! Certainly not as simple as it was.
Slipspace wrote: Just played my first game with the new FAQ and, with a sample size of 1 game, the Fly change is utter, utter gak. I was using Necrons and all of my assault units have the Fly keyword, or, in the case of Wraiths, basically have Fly to all intents and purposes (which has also been nerfed). I couldn't physically charge a large number of my opponent's units because they were in the first floor of a building and Wraiths, Command Barges and Tomb Blades can't actually charge into the upper floors of buildings any more as a result of this rule. All my rapid assault was basically neutered by standing one floor off the ground.
My Blood Angels are equallt screwed, I think, if not more so. No flying over screening units, making chaff even better thant hey already are and further reducing the importance of positioning when facing an assault army. Now all you have to do is put a unit in front of your army and I can't do anything about it. You don't have to worry about jumping over them to get at the character buffing them behind, or even locking a unit in combat because I can't jump to the rear of a unit to keep them locked up.
My biggest concern about the FAQ though, is that GW claimed soup is still off the menu, which strongly implies they don't even understand what the problem with sou is. If they think the Battle Brothers rule prevents soup I fear for the future of the game since that indicates a huge misunderstanding of the problems in the game.
The thing to do here is to slow down, go back and re-read the rules again. The rules interactions have changed so you have to go back to the beginning.
Read the rules on ruins on page 248 again. Can your Wraiths, Barges and Tomb Blades Fly? Note the bold text, that means that you should check if they have the Fly keyword. Yes they do.
Now look at the rules change on Fly. Only in the movement phase do you ignore intervening models and terrain, you no longer ignore these things in the charge phase. The Fly keyword is in no way removed, only those specific effects of the Fly keyword outside of the Movement phase. They still have the Fly keyword, the restriction on ending moves on ground level still does not apply to them in any phase of the game in which they move.
So each of those units still has the ability to go to higher levels of ruins whether in the movement phase or the charge phase. What has changed is that now they must pay the movement cost for doing so - typically that will be an additional 3" required on charging up to the first level of ruins. That definitely makes Fly assault units a bit less good because they now need to roll the same distance to make the charge as anything else but it does not invalidate them.
Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.
The way that people talk about Blood Angels you would think that they had Jump Packs baked into the base cost of every single model in their codex and all shooting options had been removed. Neither of those is actually the case and my reading of the codex was that it is a pretty balanced all-round Marine force with a bit of extra oomph in the fight phase and a couple of extra units well placed to take advantage of that. BA will tend to behave more like other marines in general now, that is not super great for BA players because generic marines are not in a super great position in top tournament play but their howls of rage at having their whole codex rendered unplayable just look like the usual over-reaction to change.
You are forgetting one thing: only infantry can move through walls and floors. So wraiths not only have to add 3" (or 5" with the new GW ruins) to reach the first floor, they also have to move over he walls of that floor. So they have to add the height of the wall where the target is hiding behind TWICE.....and heaven help if there is another level above the target…
And if the target hugs the wall and you have to place your models behind them, can you charge at all because it would mean moving over enemy models? That FLY change was short-sighted and badly implemented. You could already prevent FLY models jumping over screens by screening smartly.
If there intend was only to prevent 0" charges they should have changed the charge rule not the fly rule.
chimeara wrote: I played my first games today with the new FAQ. The first game, nothing of note relating to the FAQ came up. The second game, I was testing for a big event and I requested to play against IGcp battery/IK. A conga line of guardsmen almost stopped my DP from charging the Dominus. Just a line of little dudes straight across.
I had to use my Helverins to clear the way, thanks to rolling poorly I had to use both Helverins. I was not a fan of having to use the Helverins to kill guardsmen.
It's a very awkward, very poorly written rule. I'm not sure if they were trying to target DP's/BA captains with this rule. But it worked, they made fly charging not a thing anymore.
It makes me reconsider running DP's at all.
1) So you're complaining about shooting up infantry with what's essentially an anti-infantry/anti-light vehicle weapon?
2) Something prevents you from simply flying over those IG in the movement step? And THEN charging the Dominus?
3) Well, since you were testing for an upcoming event, I guess you learned that you're going to have to modify your attack plan. So it was a successful test.
1) To me, they are not for light infantry they're for meq or higher. But I see your point.
2) At the movement phase, i only had enough range to move up to the guardsman wall as he had the Castellan on his back line.
3) Yes, very much so.
Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.
You are... actually right o_O I assumed that since the rule speaks so specifically about Infantry being able to traverse ruins without problems Infantry and fliers were the ONLY ones that could do that. Well, this just made my Thunderlord and TWC a bit better (assuming I can fitthose huge bases on athose small ruin floors... ah well, in most of my games we simply rule that if a charge succeeds but the models don't fit they are assumed to be standing in CC while in reality they are standing somewhere they don't fall over). I now have to wonder though, since the rule is only talking about Vehicles/ Monsters/ Bikes only being able to end their move on the ground floor, can they actually charge to higher floors? Would be awesome for stuff like Maulerfiends...
Please also note that only Vehicles, Monsters and Bikes have issues with higher levels of ruins anyway, I have had to ask more than one opponent to go back and actually read the rules when they have claimed my Kroot Hounds are unable to spend 3" of movement to climb up a level of ruins. Nowhere in that rule did it ever say that Beasts - such as Wraiths - can only end their movement on the ground level. A common misunderstanding easily fixed by reading the rule properly.
You are... actually right o_O I assumed that since the rule speaks so specifically about Infantry being able to traverse ruins without problems Infantry and fliers were the ONLY ones that could do that. Well, this just made my Thunderlord and TWC a bit better (assuming I can fitthose huge bases on athose small ruin floors... ah well, in most of my games we simply rule that if a charge succeeds but the models don't fit they are assumed to be standing in CC while in reality they are standing somewhere they don't fall over). I now have to wonder though, since the rule is only talking about Vehicles/ Monsters/ Bikes only being able to end their move on the ground floor, can they actually charge to higher floors? Would be awesome for stuff like Maulerfiends...
Cavalry can't go to higher floors,it was in one of the BRB erratas and is still there.
Well. I mostly play against DE. One of the players I usually play with uses a lot of jet bikes using the ability to fly over my units to cause mortals. Can he still do that?
Alex_85 wrote: Well. I mostly play against DE. One of the players I usually play with uses a lot of jet bikes using the ability to fly over my units to cause mortals. Can he still do that?
Fly units can still move over models in the movement phase. They just cant do it in the charge phase aswell now.
So yes
The rules for matched play make a restriction for being ''weapon brothers''.
Somebody in the position to clarify this (more than one keyword in each detachment other than Chaos and whatnot).
The German translation is a bit weak.
wuestenfux wrote: The rules for matched play make a restriction for being ''weapon brothers''.
Somebody in the position to clarify this (more than one keyword in each detachment other than Chaos and whatnot).
The German translation is a bit weak.
That's the battle brothers rule. Basically within detachment ALL models must share keyword that cannon be imperium, chaos etc. However army wide different detachments can use those keywords.
So for example supreme command detachment with celestial, slamquinus and company commander is illegal. 3 detachments of IG, sisters of battle and blood angels with those units in each would be legal.
This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
Marmatag wrote: This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.
Marmatag wrote: This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.
It is hardly a nerf at all. It just kills 1 particularly toxic combo that some Eldar players were using to give the rest of us a bad name
I’m always surprised that people think soup was going to get killed in a single ruling.
Soup is going to die a death of 1K cuts. And it’s not even going to die. It’s just going to get to a point where you can use soup, but it’s not benefiting you over running monothematic.
Reemule wrote: It’s just going to get to a point where you can use soup, but it’s not benefiting you over running monothematic.
Which is were it should have been to start, but I agree "soup" shouldn't go away completely. You just shouldn't get more bonus from doing so that running a single Codex list.
Marmatag wrote: This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.
They can't land anywhere. You know where they are and can commit to attacking or avoiding it. Secondly, you have the ability to kill them. It may not be perfect, but also hiding reapers in a corner does limit their scope.
Most players would rather pay 1 CP and land anywhere they want without the cost of a transport or the risk of it being destroyed, as with the contents inside.
Deep striking your shooting was one of the most effective ways to null deploy it. I personally would put 3 Ravagers in reserve. They have a 36" range. So i can land them in my zone and shoot into yours. Can't do that anymore. Now, like everyone else, i'll be vaporized by Knight shooting before i can do anything. Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.
What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.
Terrain =/= distance.
That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.
So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.
Marmatag wrote: This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.
They can't land anywhere. You know where they are and can commit to attacking or avoiding it. Secondly, you have the ability to kill them. It may not be perfect, but also hiding reapers in a corner does limit their scope.
Most players would rather pay 1 CP and land anywhere they want without the cost of a transport or the risk of it being destroyed, as with the contents inside.
Deep striking your shooting was one of the most effective ways to null deploy it. I personally would put 3 Ravagers in reserve. They have a 36" range. So i can land them in my zone and shoot into yours. Can't do that anymore. Now, like everyone else, i'll be vaporized by Knight shooting before i can do anything. Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.
But we we'rent talking about Rvagers, you brought up the Wave Serpent.
And losing your Ravagers turn 1 is why you only pay 125 points for those paper murder boats of death. (which is hilariously undercosted and most likely getting a 'fix' in CA.
Elbows wrote: What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.
Terrain =/= distance.
That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.
So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.
The rule was updated specifically so that people could block flyers with screening units. 0" charges were not a thing in big tournaments, and any well run RTT.
Marmatag wrote: This is a sizable nerf to Eldar. Deep striking Reapers turn 1 and Fire + Fading behind ruins after shooting was a thing. Now, this is a turn 2 gambit, or they must be in a transport on the table (and therefore vulnerable).
a 2+ save -1 to hit Wave Serpent hiding behind some piece of LoS terrein is not very vulnerable.
They can't land anywhere. You know where they are and can commit to attacking or avoiding it. Secondly, you have the ability to kill them. It may not be perfect, but also hiding reapers in a corner does limit their scope.
Most players would rather pay 1 CP and land anywhere they want without the cost of a transport or the risk of it being destroyed, as with the contents inside.
Deep striking your shooting was one of the most effective ways to null deploy it. I personally would put 3 Ravagers in reserve. They have a 36" range. So i can land them in my zone and shoot into yours. Can't do that anymore. Now, like everyone else, i'll be vaporized by Knight shooting before i can do anything. Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.
But we we'rent talking about Rvagers, you brought up the Wave Serpent.
And losing your Ravagers turn 1 is why you only pay 125 points for those paper murder boats of death. (which is hilariously undercosted and most likely getting a 'fix' in CA.
We're talking about this rule, so anything that deep strikes turn 1 is relevant. And my point stands in regards to the reapers. It changes the strategy and limits options. It also allows for counterplay scenarios. You might not like what they are, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. You can argue till you're blue in the face but that doesn't change that this change does indeed hurt dark reapers. It also hurts Tallarn, so they can't outflank a baneblade. And i'm fine with it.
And Ravagers are made of paper, which is why they are fine.
Elbows wrote: What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.
Terrain =/= distance.
That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.
So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.
From the Rulebook faq, prior to the latest change.
Q: When a unit that can Fly declares a charge move against a
unit that is on the upper levels of a ruin, do I need to include
the vertical distance when making the subsequent charge move
for the unit?
A: No. A unit that can Fly effectively ignores vertical
distances when making a charge move. Note though that
the charging unit must still be within 12" (measured
directly ‘base-to-base’, i.e. diagonally) to be able to
declare the charge in the frst place.
So, If I am 10" above (or below) you I could make a 0" charge (or close to) because I ignore the vertical distance between us.
This was not some mythical non-existent reading of the rules. It's right there.
That answer is no longer in the Rulebook FAQ, so it has no bearing on how the rules currently function. Elbows is right in that the rulebook itself didn't allow it, a Special Snowflake FAQ did.
Which people immediately called out as pants on head stupid and not the way it was supposed to be played. A perfect example of how bad GW is at rules writing and playing their own game.
1. Rule works fine
2. Crazy RAI "fix" in FAQ 3. Embarrassed when players use their fix
4. Knee jerk reaction the other way.
See fire raptor point costing as example 2 off the top of my head.
Wave serpents are among the toughest vehicles with their shielding, negs to hit and now 2+ save first turn. Good luck popping one of those unless you are shooting your entire army at it and then that is a comically inefficient shooting phase.
The no deepstriking into your own zone has more of an impact on deathwatch trying to keep dreads alive or trying to keep inceptors alive for counter shooting than eldar with all of their "you can't kill me" shenanigans. Reapers can still start out of LOS and then fire and fade back to LOS or just drop down on turn 2 and still be able to shoot anywhere on the board with their 48" range.
Ravagers will take it in the pants but they are only such a high value target because they are crazy efficient and under-priced for what they do (especially to 2 wound models or with the help of doom/jinx). Once disi cannons go up 5 points and have their range reduced to 24" and can't benefit from craftworld doom/jinx I'll be happy to listen to any and all complaints about them.
Not being able to forward deploy rangers is probably the biggest eldar nerf but wouldn't they now count in cover with the strat so they get the neg to hit? Also now that you can screen out stuff with fly from being able to charge your units/crazy OP flyers and will face significantly less smash captains to counter said flyers eldar seem to have come out ahead.
The cover strat helps flyers of all flavors (yay eldar again) but the stormwolf looks good with the rune priest around to keep it alive after turn 2 and maybe even dark angels and their -2 to hit talons (which got nerfed before the eldar stuff, you know, because of reasons) maybe a couple dark angel xiphons...
Elbows wrote: What concerns me is that deepstriking units with the 'Fly' word have never been able to execute 0" charges. That's not how the rules are written. So what GW actually ended up addressing was a small group of people's piss poor reading of those rules and interactions - defending it by referring to equally silly TO's rulings.
Terrain =/= distance.
That is the fundamental flaw. For instance, an assault marine may be standing in front of a 24" tall solid wall of a fortress. The rules allow him to ignore this wall during movement, but his movement does not become more than his standard 12" (assuming he is not advancing). This means he may magically jump "over" the wall and end up 12" away from his current position, but he is unable to jump 24" to the top of the wall. The wall is a piece of terrain, it is not distance. Just in the same way a unit deepstriking atop an enemy model inside of a building might ignore the intervening floors and walls - but is still the same 9" or more away from his target unit. If you were to remove the building completely (by way of tricksy magicks) the assaulting model would still be floating 9" above the tabletop - his distance having not decreased.
So the rules as originally written were functionally fine. It was people twisting the rules and then backing them up with ignorant TO rulings that created the non-existent 0" charge.
From the Rulebook faq, prior to the latest change.
Q: When a unit that can Fly declares a charge move against a
unit that is on the upper levels of a ruin, do I need to include
the vertical distance when making the subsequent charge move
for the unit?
A: No. A unit that can Fly effectively ignores vertical
distances when making a charge move. Note though that
the charging unit must still be within 12" (measured
directly ‘base-to-base’, i.e. diagonally) to be able to
declare the charge in the frst place.
So, If I am 10" above (or below) you I could make a 0" charge (or close to) because I ignore the vertical distance between us.
This was not some mythical non-existent reading of the rules. It's right there.
Sure...and that's an example of GW getting their own stuff incorrect. Just as some TO's did.
TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...
Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.
So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.
tneva82 wrote: TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...
Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.
So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.
So if units that FLY charged models somewhere higher up in a building, because the horizontal distance was 0", then charge could not fail? Hence 0" charge.
So how does the current FAQ affect this? I'm trying to get my head around it.
Is it - as they can't fly in the charge phase they have to move normally, so cannot ignore the vertical distance? They can still make the charge if they roll high enough but not make it automatically?
Reemule wrote: It’s just going to get to a point where you can use soup, but it’s not benefiting you over running monothematic.
Which is were it should have been to start, but I agree "soup" shouldn't go away completely. You just shouldn't get more bonus from doing so that running a single Codex list.
-
Soup gives you a larger variety of models and units to choose from.
Why should GW have an interest to change this? Looks like a monetary issue.
tneva82 wrote: TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...
Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.
So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.
So if units that FLY charged models somewhere higher up in a building, because the horizontal distance was 0", then charge could not fail? Hence 0" charge.
So how does the current FAQ affect this? I'm trying to get my head around it.
Is it - as they can't fly in the charge phase they have to move normally, so cannot ignore the vertical distance? They can still make the charge if they roll high enough but not make it automatically?
Yes. before if your horizontal distance was 0" you literally could not fail as long as base of the enemy wasn't so big that 2" movement would not get you out of base(I'm not sure is there any base big enough that being dead center you would need more than 2" to get clear of the enemy base...) you succeeded. Stupid, illogical but hey that's GW for you. Luckily they fixed that though not on a way I expected(I would have thought they would count the diagonical distance. That would have helped flyers to charge as direct line is shorter than first horizontal movement and then up but not 0" charge level of bonker advantage)
And Current FAQ made it so that fly only applies in movement phase. Bit gamey and illogical ruling resulting in hilarious situations like helldrake not being able to charge flyer because of guardsmen between but ah well. At least slamquinus is nerfed. So on assault phase they foot slog it like the rest of wimps. High ground became even harder to assault(having already become quite hard after GW removed wobbly model syndrome rule being usable to assault there resulting in situations like when I last time played dark eldars and could literally do nothing else but shoot at pistols vs DE vehicles...Yeah ork pistol shooting vs DE full shooting is going to be a fair fight!
tneva82 wrote: TO's don't get it wrong when they are saying use the rules as GW specifically said they work...
Like it or not 0" charge was legal. GW specifically called it out. It's not even unclear when GW makes it this clear.
So yes they were able to execute 0" charges for quite a while. Thank GW for that. It's not piss poor reading by players when GW spefically says so in the official FAQ.
So if units that FLY charged models somewhere higher up in a building, because the horizontal distance was 0", then charge could not fail? Hence 0" charge.
So how does the current FAQ affect this? I'm trying to get my head around it.
Is it - as they can't fly in the charge phase they have to move normally, so cannot ignore the vertical distance? They can still make the charge if they roll high enough but not make it automatically?
Yes. before if your horizontal distance was 0" you literally could not fail as long as base of the enemy wasn't so big that 2" movement would not get you out of base(I'm not sure is there any base big enough that being dead center you would need more than 2" to get clear of the enemy base...) you succeeded. Stupid, illogical but hey that's GW for you. Luckily they fixed that though not on a way I expected(I would have thought they would count the diagonical distance. That would have helped flyers to charge as direct line is shorter than first horizontal movement and then up but not 0" charge level of bonker advantage)
And Current FAQ made it so that fly only applies in movement phase. Bit gamey and illogical ruling resulting in hilarious situations like helldrake not being able to charge flyer because of guardsmen between but ah well. At least slamquinus is nerfed. So on assault phase they foot slog it like the rest of wimps. High ground became even harder to assault(having already become quite hard after GW removed wobbly model syndrome rule being usable to assault there resulting in situations like when I last time played dark eldars and could literally do nothing else but shoot at pistols vs DE vehicles...Yeah ork pistol shooting vs DE full shooting is going to be a fair fight!
Seems to make sense for infantry with jump packs and the like, who bounce around the battlefield but land in between.
Makes knob all sense for things that actually fly, i.e. Helldrakes.
Maybe they should have left it that you can charge over things but any unit you pass over on your way to your charge victim can overwatch you.
They could have made it so you just have to declare charges against any units you are flying over so that they get overwatch when doing so, and that you do not ignore vertical distance in the charge phase. Doing so would have addressed both the issues they wanted to handle in a much more sensible way, but instead we got the usual GW over reaction...
Regarding all that charge stuff. Is there any restriction for regular no-fly units to move to second floors in straight lines only?
For example, your average marine stands 3" away from a ruin and there is an average guardsman on the 2d floor 3" above the ground. Does a marine need to move 3" towards the ruin and than 3" up or can he move 4" directly towards his goal?
koooaei wrote: Regarding all that charge stuff. Is there any restriction for regular no-fly units to move to second floors in straight lines only?
For example, your average marine stands 3" away from a ruin and there is an average guardsman on the 2d floor 3" above the ground. Does a marine need to move 3" towards the ruin and than 3" up or can he move 4" directly towards his goal?
He needs to end his charge move placed within 1 inch of a model he declared a charge against.
He also has to move 3 to the ruin then 3 inch up.
Where it gets more complicated because GW's.
If he starts his charge within the ruin the rules seem to the move to be measured point to point.
koooaei wrote: But where is it written that he must move 3" towards a ruin and than 3" up. From what i see, a model can move in any direction.
now there is a can of worms
I would, humbly, suggest that the movement rules cover movement on the table, the bit on ruins covers the vertical elevation change - otherwise all models could just elevate like a Dalek faced with stairs and be wherever they want
Ravagers are good but they have to arrive turn 2 now. You can't drop them on the table turn 1... these guys are made of paper and will die to bolter fire.
A nerf isn't necessary. A dark eldar army doesn't put out a lot of firepower that isn't poisoned. And poisoned against 3+ 2W is a joke, you're not killing anything.
Remember how bad Dark Eldar were pre-codex... worse than everything else in the game.
Sorry but in a meta where Knights exist, it isn't good enough.
Some of the DE players I know don't even run disintigrators anymore, because they're ineffective against Knights, and other tanks. And wounding T7 on 3s versus 5s is a big deal.
Ravagers are essentially the one way Dark Eldar can kill elite infantry. Without them, you could deep strike in your primaris and win every time. Think about it. lol
IKs big flaw for the most part is that their shooting sucks. Castellan is the exception, and its getting its balls racked in CA for sure.
You should feel bad for this post.
The little knights are definitely baller status and can curb stomp things into oblivion. If you're playing people who only use their knights in the shooting phase, and ignore the 12x (or, 15x gallant) stomps hitting on 3s i don't know what to tell you.
If the problem is doom or jinx that should be adjusted not the Ravager. Right? Although I still disagree with you, as DE have essentially no access to wound rerolls outside of a crap relic.
Martel732 wrote: Drukhari don't get stomped unless they want to get stomped. Or they send in their super cheap T6 4W 4++ models.
The little knights are okay, but nowhere near as good as Drukhari units at murder.
Well now we're discussing prophets of flesh which produce Grotesques and Talos that are probably too strong for their points because of the 4++ and extra toughness. In that sense, I do agree. But this is a step away from Ravagers completely.
Let's be careful when constructing this DE boogyman list.
1. Grotesques means a detachment of Haemonculous 2. Vect means a detachment of Kabals 3. Doom/Jinx means a detachment of Eldar
Remember, too, Vect was nerfed, so people who were doing this with 1 auxiliary of kabalite warriors for Vect won't get that anymore once they die.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is my current list:
I had to add the Skyrunner. Every other table has super heavies on it. Acting like you don't need an answer to super heavies at nearly every table is disingenuous. All of the anti-Knight firepower is flatly more effective against Ravagers. They die fast man. Bananathug and I were at a tournament recently and i counted 11 super heavies. I encountered 5 in my games.
FWIW I can't even play Tyranids anymore. That army in its entirety has no answer to super heavies.
Martel732 wrote: Ravagers end my game from 36" away. IKs, other than castellan, can never do that.
Pfft, Wardens, Crusaders?
If you're not encountering an Endless Fury you're playing in a clownshoes meta. That gun MELTS. 14 shots, rolls of 6 produce 2 hits instead of 1. (Note: Rolls of 6, so -1 doesn't affect it like it does Tesla). If it's house raven things are even worse. By itself that gun is better than 2 Ravagers, even without rerolls.
Yeah and at that same tourney one of your stupid raiders killed my 3++ custode bike captain with overwatch and my heavily priamris force (DW + custodes + BA) got the pleasure of facing 2x dark eldar armies with enough disi cannons to blot out the sun...
But yeah, doom is mandatory for DE in this meta. But once you have it your shooting is crazy effective. The 3++ castillian isn't as much of a problem for your guys (once doomed/jinxed) as it is for the rest of us but all the t8 does hurt your shooting output a lot vs lists with 3+ knights.
Eldar flyers are also really good. Those crimson exarch planes put the hurt on those 5++ knights and native -2 to hit going up to -3 they can pretty survive anything now that smash captains are an endangered species.
Hopefully CA does something about the knight on every other table meta (especially now that I can't throw BA smash captains at them, although as many failed charges w/ re-rolls I end up with I'm glad this crutch is going away).
Either way, the FAQ didn't do much to knock down the stuff that was dominating the meta nor did it do much to help the stuff struggling (except Tau, I think they will be more in meta). Hopefully CA is more aggressive but that's 3ish months away.
I'm not sure about the CQC knights though. They have too many predators and with screens being as strong as they are I still can't see any reason to run anything other than a castillian. They do work well against certain builds (DE) but the other meta lists pop them pretty easily.
Well that was a lucky overwatch roll. 6 to hit, 5 to wound, failed 3++, 6 damage. That's super rare and an extreme edge case.
Ravagers are a great counter to primaris, specifically. But, that doesn't make them broken. Many armies have counters... it's just unfortunate you ran into the only 2 Dark Eldar players at that event. Things would have been worse for you against an Endless Fury though.
Doom and Jinx are amazing powers. I'll agree with that.
Who knows maybe they'll release Jaghatai Khan as a Dark Eldar primarch.
FWIW a House Raven Imperial Knight /w Endless Fury forces ~11 saves on Primaris, even at T5, with just that one gun. Then he has a RFBC, and the subsequent 12 stomps.
What have Imperial Soup being top tier has to do with Space Marines?
You know what, nevermind. At this point this kind of threads, when dont enter a "Imperial guard is OP" "no, it isn't" just devolve into people arguing what, from the OP bucket, is more OP than the rest.
Martel732 wrote: Ravagers end my game from 36" away. IKs, other than castellan, can never do that.
Pfft, Wardens, Crusaders?
If you're not encountering an Endless Fury you're playing in a clownshoes meta. That gun MELTS. 14 shots, rolls of 6 produce 2 hits instead of 1. (Note: Rolls of 6, so -1 doesn't affect it like it does Tesla). If it's house raven things are even worse. By itself that gun is better than 2 Ravagers, even without rerolls.
Two ravagers have 18 shots wounding on the same number, hitting on the same number, with better AP. And they can hold two objectives while doing this, not just one.
I think his point is eldar soup is S tier (along with knight/guard soup, craft worlds and chaos soup) and plain old DE is just A tier (along with death guard, knights and ???). B tier (tau, guard, TS, crazy bad faction builds ie tesseract vaults, brain bugs and screens or mw spam marines) then the rest of the "non-competitive" armies are fighting for the C,D and grey knight tiers.
At least that's how I've experienced it. The FAQ did little to push down S tier or push up non-competitive tier. Hopefully CA does the heavy lifting. But I do agree with Galas in that just because your army isn't S tier doesn't mean that it's not powerful.
Pushing down both the S and A tiers would go a long way towards getting the game to a balanced state. There will always be an element of rock-paper-scissors and some armies will be better than others but right now we're playing wet tissue paper(everyone else)-gun(a-b)-nuclear bomb (s).
Reemule wrote: I’m always surprised that people think soup was going to get killed in a single ruling.
Soup is going to die a death of 1K cuts.
Except that Soup didn't receive a single cut in the FAQ.
And before anyone says it - no, you're not allowed to count rulings that hurt mono-armies and soup in equal measure because that's not a nerf to soup, it's just a general nerf to everything.
The CP regen change at least hurt soup more than mono.
The primary use of CP regen was to power CP-depedent books (IK, BA) with regen from books that can't do as much with CP (IG).
Mono-IG is mostly unaffected by the change: a mono IG list with plenty of CP to spare isn't much less powerful than the same IG list with twice as many CP - IG just doesn't need it as much.
Similarly, mono-IK and mono-BA are practically unaffected by the change. How many CP are they going to lose out on?
Now, that alone isn't going to do substantial damage to soup. And I'm blanking on other things that hurt soup.
Sidenote: the Corsairs change techncially helped Soup, because each individual Corsair unit - even Troops - doesn't cost 1CP anymore. However, not only are they completely irrelevant competitively, but also that change helped Mono-corsairs much more than soup-corsiars: you can now field more than 3 units in a mono-Corsairs army! (still terrible, though.) So that change would *technically* promote mono over soup!
Reemule wrote: I’m always surprised that people think soup was going to get killed in a single ruling.
Soup is going to die a death of 1K cuts.
Except that Soup didn't receive a single cut in the FAQ.
And before anyone says it - no, you're not allowed to count rulings that hurt mono-armies and soup in equal measure because that's not a nerf to soup, it's just a general nerf to everything.
While technically I do believe it hurts soup slightly more then mono builds the FAQ didn't do nearly enough to hurt the power of soup and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament (unless the ork codex is something special which i hope it is).
Similarly, mono-IK and mono-BA are practically unaffected by the change. How many CP are they going to lose out on?
you must not be serious. Do you know how many CP both those armies needed? They had to run the IGCP generators, and their own to stay efficient for 4-5 turns. Without them they run out of CP turn 1-2. And while against weak or bad armies a first or second turn win is possible, it is not the case when facing good armies.
While technically I do believe it hurts soup slightly more then mono builds the FAQ didn't do nearly enough to hurt the power of soup and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament (unless the ork codex is something special which i hope it is).
Ok, lets say mono knights are maybe playable. Do you think BAs are going to exist as an army after the cpt nerf? Or RG lists or AL ?
Mono knights are absolutely playable. It just doesn't make sense though to add another armiger when you could bring an entire guard battalion for the same cost.
The idea of "mono lists" is something that exists solely on dakka.
Marmatag wrote: Mono knights are absolutely playable. It just doesn't make sense though to add another armiger when you could bring an entire guard battalion for the same cost.
The idea of "mono lists" is something that exists solely on dakka.
Or in like... 80% of the stores, clubs, etc... out there outside the ITC east coast tournament meta?
Soup are the mayority here in big tournaments, but even in those you see plenty of mono lists. But we don't use ITC.
Similarly, mono-IK and mono-BA are practically unaffected by the change. How many CP are they going to lose out on?
you must not be serious. Do you know how many CP both those armies needed? They had to run the IGCP generators, and their own to stay efficient for 4-5 turns. Without them they run out of CP turn 1-2. And while against weak or bad armies a first or second turn win is possible, it is not the case when facing good armies.
While technically I do believe it hurts soup slightly more then mono builds the FAQ didn't do nearly enough to hurt the power of soup and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament (unless the ork codex is something special which i hope it is).
Ok, lets say mono knights are maybe playable. Do you think BAs are going to exist as an army after the cpt nerf? Or RG lists or AL ?
Wait, you are saying: "This change has nerfed my mono BA because it needed to soup with guards" ? Aren't you actually agreeing with him then? The CP nerf is first of all a nerf to soup and IG, other mono codici are almost unaffected, he is right.
Also, i don't understand those that say that souping has not impacted top lists because they will just discard one of the detachments and run double IG brigade to fuel a castellan.
It's not like this is something that they couldn't do before. They didn't do it because it was a weaker version of those lists. So this is by definition a nerf.
Also, this change is clearly reducing the gap between mono armies and soup armies. If your answer to the nerf is "Ok fine, i will just bring more guards", then this means that your "soup" is becoming more similar to a mono IG list. Since that soup is still the top of the meta (probably) and the mono IG is probably the top of mono dex meta, this means that mono dex meta and soup meta are getting closer by definition.
The "death to a thousand cuts" concept is quite at work here.
Similarly, mono-IK and mono-BA are practically unaffected by the change. How many CP are they going to lose out on?
you must not be serious. Do you know how many CP both those armies needed? They had to run the IGCP generators, and their own to stay efficient for 4-5 turns. Without them they run out of CP turn 1-2. And while against weak or bad armies a first or second turn win is possible, it is not the case when facing good armies.
What you are saying here is that BA are a one trick pony and that trick was the Smash Capt, now nerfed, like it was the only unit in the BA book. I'm pretty sure there were other units in there.
Now you have to consider your options and use your CP wisely, instead of just spamming the same Strats every turn, Boohoo. Oh and you can't win by turn 3? how sad for you.
For the record, I play a mono SM (RG sometimes) list. Smash Captains have fallen to my Mercy Squad of Assault Marines + LT (Mercy) all with Chainswords + 3 plas (LT, Sgt, Spc). They have also been victims of my tarantulas with Assault Cannons. As for screens, They seem easy enough to plow through even without templates. You'd be surprised how many people give up when their Smash is taken off the board.
Marmatag wrote: Ravagers are good but they have to arrive turn 2 now. You can't drop them on the table turn 1... these guys are made of paper and will die to bolter fire.
A nerf isn't necessary. A dark eldar army doesn't put out a lot of firepower that isn't poisoned. And poisoned against 3+ 2W is a joke, you're not killing anything.
Remember how bad Dark Eldar were pre-codex... worse than everything else in the game.
Well all that poisoning that floored my ork army last time would have killed 64 3+ W2 models...(calculated how many models I lost, divided it by 5/6 to see how many wounds it needed to cause to get past 6+, then divide that by 6 to get how many primaris models died). How many 3+ 2W models you face anyway?
And that was DE army with tons of dark lances as it was designed more with knights in mind...Hardly ideal for splatting boyz and grots.
Wait, you are saying: "This change has nerfed my mono BA because it needed to soup with guards" ? Aren't you actually agreeing with him then? The CP nerf is first of all a nerf to soup and IG, other mono codici are almost unaffected, he is right.
Also, i don't understand those that say that souping has not impacted top lists because they will just discard one of the detachments and run double IG brigade to fuel a castellan.
It's not like this is something that they couldn't do before. They didn't do it because it was a weaker version of those lists. So this is by definition a nerf.
Also, this change is clearly reducing the gap between mono armies and soup armies. If your answer to the nerf is "Ok fine, i will just bring more guards", then this means that your "soup" is becoming more similar to a mono IG list. Since that soup is still the top of the meta (probably) and the mono IG is probably the top of mono dex meta, this means that mono dex meta and soup meta are getting closer by definition.
The "death to a thousand cuts" concept is quite at work here.
It is not a nerf to soup, because a soup player doesn't play any faction. A BA player can't just jump and decide starting tomorrow he will play eldar, may as well tell him to play AoS. What I was saying was that BA got nerfed two or three times this edition, and each time GW made the army list smaller and smaller. the last BA "army" was limited to scouts and cpts, and now they do not even have that. Ah and I don't play BA.
Marmatag wrote: Ravagers are good but they have to arrive turn 2 now. You can't drop them on the table turn 1... these guys are made of paper and will die to bolter fire.
A nerf isn't necessary. A dark eldar army doesn't put out a lot of firepower that isn't poisoned. And poisoned against 3+ 2W is a joke, you're not killing anything.
Remember how bad Dark Eldar were pre-codex... worse than everything else in the game.
Well all that poisoning that floored my ork army last time would have killed 64 3+ W2 models...(calculated how many models I lost, divided it by 5/6 to see how many wounds it needed to cause to get past 6+, then divide that by 6 to get how many primaris models died). How many 3+ 2W models you face anyway?
And that was DE army with tons of dark lances as it was designed more with knights in mind...Hardly ideal for splatting boyz and grots.
I strongly suspect that the poison weapons were not what actually killed your orks. You have suffered 1152 poison shots, which would mean 6 turns of full firepwer in rapid fire range of 96 poison weapons. I find this quite impossible.
What you are saying here is that BA are a one trick pony and that trick was the Smash Capt, now nerfed, like it was the only unit in the BA book. I'm pretty sure there were other units in there.
Now you have to consider your options and use your CP wisely, instead of just spamming the same Strats every turn, Boohoo. Oh and you can't win by turn 3? how sad for you.
For the record, I play a mono SM (RG sometimes) list. Smash Captains have fallen to my Mercy Squad of Assault Marines + LT (Mercy) all with Chainswords + 3 plas (LT, Sgt, Spc). They have also been victims of my tarantulas with Assault Cannons. As for screens, They seem easy enough to plow through even without templates. You'd be surprised how many people give up when their Smash is taken off the board.
Maybe there were. I know the guy who had a BA army around my store had jump pack dudes, death company etc. All the stuff was killed off. Sure the codex has units listed., but so do GK, and no one would say that just because the GK codex has 20+ options to pick from it has a rich pool of units to pick from.
Anything post FAQBA players can build is a worse version of an ultramarine list. And IMO it ain't fair, specially when GW nerfs the things that make the BA theme and which GW shaped the codex around. If the GW decided that stuff was too good and required changing, they are in full right to do so. It aint the players games, it is GWs. But they should give BA players something in return. They should kill a faction, and leave it for God knows how long in the dump. I mean where can people expect a fully update BA codex? next edition and that is a maybe, because GW has the tendency to copy paste their books, so they may as well end up with a codex that is the copy of the nerf book they have right now. It happened to GK three times since 6th ed, from what I have been told.
Wait, you are saying: "This change has nerfed my mono BA because it needed to soup with guards" ? Aren't you actually agreeing with him then? The CP nerf is first of all a nerf to soup and IG, other mono codici are almost unaffected, he is right.
Also, i don't understand those that say that souping has not impacted top lists because they will just discard one of the detachments and run double IG brigade to fuel a castellan.
It's not like this is something that they couldn't do before. They didn't do it because it was a weaker version of those lists. So this is by definition a nerf.
Also, this change is clearly reducing the gap between mono armies and soup armies. If your answer to the nerf is "Ok fine, i will just bring more guards", then this means that your "soup" is becoming more similar to a mono IG list. Since that soup is still the top of the meta (probably) and the mono IG is probably the top of mono dex meta, this means that mono dex meta and soup meta are getting closer by definition.
The "death to a thousand cuts" concept is quite at work here.
It is not a nerf to soup, because a soup player doesn't play any faction. A BA player can't just jump and decide starting tomorrow he will play eldar, may as well tell him to play AoS. What I was saying was that BA got nerfed two or three times this edition, and each time GW made the army list smaller and smaller. the last BA "army" was limited to scouts and cpts, and now they do not even have that. Ah and I don't play BA.
BA players were not nerfed (by this particular change i mean, the increase in cost of the stratagem and the nerf to fly surely hurts them).
The fact that they were dependant on an unlimited amount of CP to work which came from souping, is a problem of the faction. The fact that this souping is no longer so rewarding is a nerf of a soup, not of a mono BA dex.
Also, it is false that soups have no faction and they can switch. An imperial soup surely cannot switch to an aeldari soup. This change has impacted all imperial soups. All of them. So yes, it is a nerf to soups, in particular to imperial soups. They can't simply switch to an alternative build, all the best alternatives have been nuked by this change. Now if you want to keep the old concept "Loads of cheap CPs to fuel powerful strats" which was the basis of these kinds of lists, you need 2 detachments of guards to fuel one of something else, while before with one detachment of guards you could fuel 2 detachments of something else. Doesn't matter how you put it, this is a nerf.
Take any soup list that comes out after this change and pit it against an old IG/BA/IK list pre change. I have no idea which will be the new lists, but i can tell that they will have zero chances against the old lists. This is a nerf to soup. Period.
Spoletta wrote: I strongly suspect that the poison weapons were not what actually killed your orks. You have suffered 1152 poison shots, which would mean 6 turns of full firepwer in rapid fire range of 96 poison weapons. I find this quite impossible.
Well dark lances sure as hell can't kill 250 models in 4 turn. Good luck with that! Not even when he had the luxury of using 9 dark lances to shoot at orks just for fun of it.
Those venoms loaded up with splinter cannons and splinter rifles and all rapid firing rerolling 1's to hit and whatnot plus poison that wounds on 2+ etc racks up.
If it's not poison and if it's not dark lances what it was?-) The orks died. That's a fact. He didn't have other types of guns to note. Maybe 2 disintegrators. Only h2h he did was 5 or so warriors that charged for some reason to my orks rather than wait for me to charge(they were doomed anyway. 20 orks behind, 30 orks ahead, no way to flee...) but they didn't kill even single ork. Only other h2h in the game was my orks that swamped one raider(the one the warriors were) but that didn't even result in explosion that killed any orks.
Morale? LD30 and judicious use of strategem kept mostly intact. Couple d3 wounds from autofail but fairly minimal from there.
Karol wrote: Maybe there were. I know the guy who had a BA army around my store had jump pack dudes, death company etc. All the stuff was killed off. Sure the codex has units listed., but so do GK, and no one would say that just because the GK codex has 20+ options to pick from it has a rich pool of units to pick from.
Anything post FAQBA players can build is a worse version of an ultramarine list. And IMO it ain't fair, specially when GW nerfs the things that make the BA theme and which GW shaped the codex around. If the GW decided that stuff was too good and required changing, they are in full right to do so. It aint the players games, it is GWs. But they should give BA players something in return. They should kill a faction, and leave it for God knows how long in the dump. I mean where can people expect a fully update BA codex? next edition and that is a maybe, because GW has the tendency to copy paste their books, so they may as well end up with a codex that is the copy of the nerf book they have right now. It happened to GK three times since 6th ed, from what I have been told.
Ok, maybe I am missing something here. You care to list how the BA have been neutered in such a way that they are unplayable? I'm just not seeing it. I can only find a couple changes to the BA book listed in the FAQ, and yes I know there are a quite a few changes to the BRB and all.
So, How exactly have the BA been neutered to the point of effectively Squatting them?
Wait, you are saying: "This change has nerfed my mono BA because it needed to soup with guards" ? Aren't you actually agreeing with him then? The CP nerf is first of all a nerf to soup and IG, other mono codici are almost unaffected, he is right.
Also, i don't understand those that say that souping has not impacted top lists because they will just discard one of the detachments and run double IG brigade to fuel a castellan.
It's not like this is something that they couldn't do before. They didn't do it because it was a weaker version of those lists. So this is by definition a nerf.
Also, this change is clearly reducing the gap between mono armies and soup armies. If your answer to the nerf is "Ok fine, i will just bring more guards", then this means that your "soup" is becoming more similar to a mono IG list. Since that soup is still the top of the meta (probably) and the mono IG is probably the top of mono dex meta, this means that mono dex meta and soup meta are getting closer by definition.
The "death to a thousand cuts" concept is quite at work here.
It is not a nerf to soup, because a soup player doesn't play any faction. A BA player can't just jump and decide starting tomorrow he will play eldar, may as well tell him to play AoS. What I was saying was that BA got nerfed two or three times this edition, and each time GW made the army list smaller and smaller. the last BA "army" was limited to scouts and cpts, and now they do not even have that. Ah and I don't play BA.
BA players were not nerfed (by this particular change i mean, the increase in cost of the stratagem and the nerf to fly surely hurts them).
The fact that they were dependant on an unlimited amount of CP to work which came from souping, is a problem of the faction. The fact that this souping is no longer so rewarding is a nerf of a soup, not of a mono BA dex.
Also, it is false that soups have no faction and they can switch. An imperial soup surely cannot switch to an aeldari soup. This change has impacted all imperial soups. All of them. So yes, it is a nerf to soups, in particular to imperial soups. They can't simply switch to an alternative build, all the best alternatives have been nuked by this change. Now if you want to keep the old concept "Loads of cheap CPs to fuel powerful strats" which was the basis of these kinds of lists, you need 2 detachments of guards to fuel one of something else, while before with one detachment of guards you could fuel 2 detachments of something else. Doesn't matter how you put it, this is a nerf.
Take any soup list that comes out after this change and pit it against an old IG/BA/IK list pre change. I have no idea which will be the new lists, but i can tell that they will have zero chances against the old lists. This is a nerf to soup. Period.
The point is the CP regeneration change didn't effect soup via imperial guard more than mono codex's though.
It hurt Ultramrines and to a way lesser extent Guard
The increase in strategum costs effected mono Knights, Blood Angels and Drukari more than Soup
The changes to fly nerfed a lot of more elite flying models, whike making cheap screening units more powerful.
Mono faction and especially low model coint elite armies definataly took more of a hit from this FAQ than Soup.
While the composition of the soup list will change they are still more powerful than mono.
It's still going to be a bucket load of guard and a unit of something else to supercharge with CP until GW nerf it into unplayable and ruins more codex's.
Karol wrote: Maybe there were. I know the guy who had a BA army around my store had jump pack dudes, death company etc. All the stuff was killed off. Sure the codex has units listed., but so do GK, and no one would say that just because the GK codex has 20+ options to pick from it has a rich pool of units to pick from.
Anything post FAQBA players can build is a worse version of an ultramarine list. And IMO it ain't fair, specially when GW nerfs the things that make the BA theme and which GW shaped the codex around. If the GW decided that stuff was too good and required changing, they are in full right to do so. It aint the players games, it is GWs. But they should give BA players something in return. They should kill a faction, and leave it for God knows how long in the dump. I mean where can people expect a fully update BA codex? next edition and that is a maybe, because GW has the tendency to copy paste their books, so they may as well end up with a codex that is the copy of the nerf book they have right now. It happened to GK three times since 6th ed, from what I have been told.
Ok, maybe I am missing something here. You care to list how the BA have been neutered in such a way that they are unplayable? I'm just not seeing it. I can only find a couple changes to the BA book listed in the FAQ, and yes I know there are a quite a few changes to the BRB and all.
So, How exactly have the BA been neutered to the point of effectively Squatting them?
They and marines in general are pretty darn lousy ATM. Only thing that kept BA in field was slamquinus being "delete big thing X" button. Now that screens are 100% effective and CP regeneration has been nerfed that model isn't going to be used as much. And most blood angel armis were 3x5 scouts, 2-3 smash captains...
Also with reduced CP it's choise between castellan and smash captain. As smash captains can't deal with castellans just like that due to fly nerf castellan is going to be more common and BA smash captains replaced with either SW thunderwolf characters(maybe), custodian jetbike chars(maybe though supreme commander det giving 4 less CP than bat hurts) or more IG to power up knight strategems.
Ok, lets say mono knights are maybe playable. Do you think BAs are going to exist as an army after the cpt nerf? Or RG lists or AL ?
Yes, I do.
Will they be seen much in tourneys? Who knows & who cares. Most tourney bound people will take whatever they think will stand the best chance of winning. So whatever that is, that's what you'll see the most of.
Will they be seen in plenty of games at shops & clubs & basements & dining room tables? Yep.
tneva82 wrote: They and marines in general are pretty darn lousy ATM. Only thing that kept BA in field was slamquinus being "delete big thing X" button. Now that screens are 100% effective and CP regeneration has been nerfed that model isn't going to be used as much. And most blood angel armis were 3x5 scouts, 2-3 smash captains...
Also with reduced CP it's choise between castellan and smash captain. As smash captains can't deal with castellans just like that due to fly nerf castellan is going to be more common and BA smash captains replaced with either SW thunderwolf characters(maybe), custodian jetbike chars(maybe though supreme commander det giving 4 less CP than bat hurts) or more IG to power up knight strategems.
Ah.... You been playing soup and not BA then. Got it.
Given the +1 to wounds that the entire army gets on a charge, when charged, or when doing a Heroic Intervention, and +1 att on a charge, A Death Company is pretty badass. Drop in a Sang Priest for the +1 str and the chance to bring back a model per turn. Mix in a few 16pt THs, because why not. Plus you can drop them turn 2 after clearing some of that screen you are so worried about.
5 DC +Sang w/JP and 5 THs is @266 pts, compared to what I run, 5 VV +Chap w/JP and 10 LCs at 247pts. Both are 14 PL.
Yep totally weaksauce and unplayable. I see your point.
Karol wrote: I know the guy who had a BA army around my store had jump pack dudes, death company etc. All the stuff was killed off. Sure the codex has units listed., but so do GK, and no one would say that just because the GK codex has 20+ options to pick from it has a rich pool of units to pick from.
No, none of his units were killed off. His current way of playing them has been altered. He'll be ok if he can adapt to that.
Karol wrote: Anything post FAQBA players can build is a worse version of an ultramarine list. ]And IMO it ain't fair, specially when GW nerfs the things that make the BA theme and which GW shaped the codex around. If the GW decided that stuff was too good and required changing, they are in full right to do so. It aint the players games, it is GWs. But they should give BA players something in return. They should kill a faction, and leave it for God knows how long in the dump. I mean where can people expect a fully update BA codex? next edition and that is a maybe, because GW has the tendency to copy paste their books, so they may as well end up with a codex that is the copy of the nerf book they have right now. It happened to GK three times since 6th ed, from what I have been told.
So to compensate the poor BA players (who're merely suffering the same adaptation woes as anyone else with a fly/charge combo is), you want GW to Squat someone else's army out of existence? How do you figure that'd help the BA lists?
But if they did, shall they start with your GK?
tneva82 wrote: They and marines in general are pretty darn lousy ATM. Only thing that kept BA in field was slamquinus being "delete big thing X" button. Now that screens are 100% effective and CP regeneration has been nerfed that model isn't going to be used as much. And most blood angel armis were 3x5 scouts, 2-3 smash captains...
Also with reduced CP it's choise between castellan and smash captain. As smash captains can't deal with castellans just like that due to fly nerf castellan is going to be more common and BA smash captains replaced with either SW thunderwolf characters(maybe), custodian jetbike chars(maybe though supreme commander det giving 4 less CP than bat hurts) or more IG to power up knight strategems.
Ah.... You been playing soup and not BA then. Got it.
Given the +1 to wounds that the entire army gets on a charge, when charged, or when doing a Heroic Intervention, and +1 att on a charge, A Death Company is pretty badass. Drop in a Sang Priest for the +1 str and the chance to bring back a model per turn. Mix in a few 16pt THs, because why not. Plus you can drop them turn 2 after clearing some of that screen you are so worried about.
5 DC +Sang w/JP and 5 THs is @266 pts, compared to what I run, 5 VV +Chap w/JP and 10 LCs at 247pts. Both are 14 PL.
Yep totally weaksauce and unplayable. I see your point.
So show me some BA lists like that that do well in competitions. Your home games don't count. Talk here is when people aren't fielding piss poor lists for fun
5 DC+sang? Dead meat. Especially now. You charge IG infantry squad(only thing IG allows you to charge now that flyers can't ignore screen) and then blows them up. DC isn't even particularly tough one. I have ran over 10 with ork boyz. They hit fine but don't take damage well. Before it could work when they could charge past screens so might actually hit something worthwhile but now...well orks will stop them with grots and then charge up with boyz and kill 'em. And if ORKS can deal with them poor fellows seeing how underpowered orks are.
tneva82 wrote: So show me some BA lists like that that do well in competitions. Your home games don't count. Talk here is when people aren't fielding piss poor lists for fun
5 DC+sang? Dead meat. Especially now. You charge IG infantry squad(only thing IG allows you to charge now that flyers can't ignore screen) and then blows them up. DC isn't even particularly tough one. I have ran over 10 with ork boyz. They hit fine but don't take damage well. Before it could work when they could charge past screens so might actually hit something worthwhile but now...well orks will stop them with grots and then charge up with boyz and kill 'em. And if ORKS can deal with them poor fellows seeing how underpowered orks are.
You want a net list. Sorry, I don't really play BA, just know how to look things up.
And that was 5 DC with TH +Sang, Just an example comparing BA to what I normally run that was roughly equal.
How Many Orks? 20 or so? Orks are basically on par with any SM in HTH both hitting on 3+. Of course, Orks get more attacks, but SM have better armor so it evens out. Maybe your oponant forgot the extra wound from being charged?
Lets compare basic Tacticals between base SM and BA: same points, same statline, BA get Red Thirst (+1W in charge situations), BA get Defenders of Humanity (Claim Objectives even if out numbered), BA get access to Inferno Pistol, Base SM get nada.
Advantage BA.
If your only tactic is to leap over intervening units to hit the heavier units behind them, use actual fliers maybe? Or you could drop in a couple Land speeders for roughly the same price each as the Slammies, with better toughness, Better speed, more wounds, and better damage potential, and if you use 3 you get a speed boost.
It's not my job, really, to tell you how to make a list. It's on you to read the materials on your army and make your own list, play a few games, make adjustments... etc...
Soup is at the top because nobody has come up with non-soup that can beat them...If you think all are wrong show it. Go to big tournaments with non-soup and consistently beat soup.
And GW...Sheesh nobody should take seriously what GW says at face value. They don't even play the same game as the rest of the world does.
tneva82 wrote: They and marines in general are pretty darn lousy ATM. Only thing that kept BA in field was slamquinus being "delete big thing X" button. Now that screens are 100% effective and CP regeneration has been nerfed that model isn't going to be used as much. And most blood angel armis were 3x5 scouts, 2-3 smash captains...
Also with reduced CP it's choise between castellan and smash captain. As smash captains can't deal with castellans just like that due to fly nerf castellan is going to be more common and BA smash captains replaced with either SW thunderwolf characters(maybe), custodian jetbike chars(maybe though supreme commander det giving 4 less CP than bat hurts) or more IG to power up knight strategems.
Ah.... You been playing soup and not BA then. Got it.
Given the +1 to wounds that the entire army gets on a charge, when charged, or when doing a Heroic Intervention, and +1 att on a charge, A Death Company is pretty badass. Drop in a Sang Priest for the +1 str and the chance to bring back a model per turn. Mix in a few 16pt THs, because why not. Plus you can drop them turn 2 after clearing some of that screen you are so worried about.
5 DC +Sang w/JP and 5 THs is @266 pts, compared to what I run, 5 VV +Chap w/JP and 10 LCs at 247pts. Both are 14 PL.
Yep totally weaksauce and unplayable. I see your point.
DC is useless, as they cost too much. The whole codex is overcosted crap. It was really unplayable before this faq, there was just one unit that had a soup niche. BACC options outside of the capt were crap before the FAQ. So you are partially correct.
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
tneva82 wrote: So show me some BA lists like that that do well in competitions. Your home games don't count. Talk here is when people aren't fielding piss poor lists for fun
5 DC+sang? Dead meat. Especially now. You charge IG infantry squad(only thing IG allows you to charge now that flyers can't ignore screen) and then blows them up. DC isn't even particularly tough one. I have ran over 10 with ork boyz. They hit fine but don't take damage well. Before it could work when they could charge past screens so might actually hit something worthwhile but now...well orks will stop them with grots and then charge up with boyz and kill 'em. And if ORKS can deal with them poor fellows seeing how underpowered orks are.
You want a net list. Sorry, I don't really play BA, just know how to look things up.
And that was 5 DC with TH +Sang, Just an example comparing BA to what I normally run that was roughly equal.
How Many Orks? 20 or so? Orks are basically on par with any SM in HTH both hitting on 3+. Of course, Orks get more attacks, but SM have better armor so it evens out. Maybe your oponant forgot the extra wound from being charged?
Lets compare basic Tacticals between base SM and BA: same points, same statline, BA get Red Thirst (+1W in charge situations), BA get Defenders of Humanity (Claim Objectives even if out numbered), BA get access to Inferno Pistol, Base SM get nada.
Advantage BA.
If your only tactic is to leap over intervening units to hit the heavier units behind them, use actual fliers maybe? Or you could drop in a couple Land speeders for roughly the same price each as the Slammies, with better toughness, Better speed, more wounds, and better damage potential, and if you use 3 you get a speed boost.
It's not my job, really, to tell you how to make a list. It's on you to read the materials on your army and make your own list, play a few games, make adjustments... etc...
Just like everyone else.
Adapt and overcome.
There is no adapting and overcoming with the current BA list. Squishy punchy guys don't work in 8th. BA are squishy and punchy.
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
I actually find the imperial soup more boring than mono build Knights, Custodes even mono guard is less boring.
Each one shows of some level of player skill to pilot to multiple wins against a verity of lists.
Cherry picking the best tools from everything Imperium keyworded as per the last GT netlist doesn't show skill it shows someone just throwing money at the game to win.
A weak codex player like non Guilliman marines and GK's souping in some punch fine as those armies do need some help even in a casual meta. But knights pre FAQ, guard, eldar and tau codex's were fairly viable against each other even deathguard with some work could put up a good close game. Now some of those lists need soup for CP or have lost some of the limited synergies they had to bring them up to par.
Marmatag wrote: Mono knights are absolutely playable. It just doesn't make sense though to add another armiger when you could bring an entire guard battalion for the same cost.
The idea of "mono lists" is something that exists solely on dakka.
I would say about 80% of players I've met play mono armies.... typically about 5% play fluffy soup and the other 15% are trying to play as competitively as possible. I know its anecdotal but seriously im not sure how anyone could call mono armies some sort of dakka myth
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
The issue is there is a large percentage of the player base that enjoys playing mono build armies. the fact that you are gimping yourself by not souping is lame. There should be a benefit and a cost to soup. in an ideal world 5/10 top lists would be soup and 5/10 would be mono adding further list diversity into the top tier
Marmatag wrote: Mono knights are absolutely playable. It just doesn't make sense though to add another armiger when you could bring an entire guard battalion for the same cost.
The idea of "mono lists" is something that exists solely on dakka.
I would say about 80% of players I've met play mono armies.... typically about 5% play fluffy soup and the other 15% are trying to play as competitively as possible. I know its anecdotal but seriously im not sure how anyone could call mono armies some sort of dakka myth
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
The issue is there is a large percentage of the player base that enjoys playing mono build armies. the fact that you are gimping yourself by not souping is lame. There should be a benefit and a cost to soup. in an ideal world 5/10 top lists would be soup and 5/10 would be mono adding further list diversity into the top tier
Love playing mono. Have had to drop out of local tournies though cause of it. Tired of getting smashed.
Similarly, mono-IK and mono-BA are practically unaffected by the change. How many CP are they going to lose out on?
you must not be serious. Do you know how many CP both those armies needed? They had to run the IGCP generators, and their own to stay efficient for 4-5 turns. Without them they run out of CP turn 1-2. And while against weak or bad armies a first or second turn win is possible, it is not the case when facing good armies.
Yes he is completely serious, he's comparing mono-build IK and BA pre-FAQ to post-FAQ. Mono-builds in those factions aren't losing many CP to the FAQ changes. They are effected but it's mostly because some strategem costs went up.
The issue is there is a large percentage of the player base that enjoys playing mono build armies. the fact that you are gimping yourself by not souping is lame. There should be a benefit and a cost to soup. in an ideal world 5/10 top lists would be soup and 5/10 would be mono adding further list diversity into the top tier
Where are we drawing this line?
Am I using Amigers in place of Predators, because Amigers are overcosted or that Predators are undercosted?
Is using Armigers over Predators ANY LESS different than using marines over terminators / cultists over marines in terms of "not gimping myself"?
The issue is there is a large percentage of the player base that enjoys playing mono build armies. the fact that you are gimping yourself by not souping is lame. There should be a benefit and a cost to soup. in an ideal world 5/10 top lists would be soup and 5/10 would be mono adding further list diversity into the top tier
Where are we drawing this line?
Am I using Amigers in place of Predators, because Amigers are overcosted or that Predators are undercosted?
Is using Armigers over Predators ANY LESS different than using marines over terminators / cultists over marines in terms of "not gimping myself"?
Yeah, the issue exist in monoarmies too and it is poor balance, not the soup. I really do sympathise and understand the desire to want to use the sort of models/army you like without competitively gimping yourself, but please understand that if soup was banned tomorrow it would not result that. It would mean that now instead of strengthening your weak marine army with some guard allies so that they can even somewhat compete, your marine army is just completely competitively dead.
Marmatag wrote: Ravagers are good but they have to arrive turn 2 now. You can't drop them on the table turn 1... these guys are made of paper and will die to bolter fire.
A nerf isn't necessary. A dark eldar army doesn't put out a lot of firepower that isn't poisoned. And poisoned against 3+ 2W is a joke, you're not killing anything.
Remember how bad Dark Eldar were pre-codex... worse than everything else in the game.
Well all that poisoning that floored my ork army last time would have killed 64 3+ W2 models...(calculated how many models I lost, divided it by 5/6 to see how many wounds it needed to cause to get past 6+, then divide that by 6 to get how many primaris models died). How many 3+ 2W models you face anyway?
And that was DE army with tons of dark lances as it was designed more with knights in mind...Hardly ideal for splatting boyz and grots.
So that's *expected* 1152 shots of poison to kill that many 3+ 2W.
That's 200 shots per turn. Assuming ALWAYS rapid fire range.
6 units of Kabalites with blaster put out 48 shots per turn. 6 venoms with splinter cannons put out 72 shots per turn.
And we're essentially half way there. Assuming you're running 2 Archons (cheapest HQ available and staying Kabal) that's a minimum of 920 points. To get you *half* way there, and assuming that NONE of these models die over the course of a 6 turn game. Oh yeah and always rapid fire. Every turn. OH right, one final thing. None of the 3+ guys were ever in cover. EVER.
So yeah, i call BS
Automatically Appended Next Post:
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
It all comes down to tactics and target priority. GW's own Warhammer TV showed how Chaos could beat the IM/BA/IK list.
I haven't seen this batrep but i'm not at all surprised, Chaos in general is top tier. A Chaos player running Death Guard and Renegades won BAO.
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
I actually find the imperial soup more boring than mono build Knights, Custodes even mono guard is less boring.
Each one shows of some level of player skill to pilot to multiple wins against a verity of lists.
Cherry picking the best tools from everything Imperium keyworded as per the last GT netlist doesn't show skill it shows someone just throwing money at the game to win.
A weak codex player like non Guilliman marines and GK's souping in some punch fine as those armies do need some help even in a casual meta. But knights pre FAQ, guard, eldar and tau codex's were fairly viable against each other even deathguard with some work could put up a good close game. Now some of those lists need soup for CP or have lost some of the limited synergies they had to bring them up to par.
Winning more than 3 games at ANY tournament with ANY list shows A LOT of skill. People get it into their heads that just taking these super powerful netlists comes with a free pass to the final table but it really really doesn't.
Once you've won enough games at a tournament to play the people who are ACTUALLY good at the game it doesn't really matter what list you're running. This is why you see exact carbon copies of every top tier list sitting in 50th+ place every single event.
Once you've won enough games at a tournament to play the people who are ACTUALLY good at the game it doesn't really matter what list you're running. This is why you see exact carbon copies of every top tier list sitting in 50th+ place every single event.
It doesn't matter ? Or it doesn't matter as long as you play the builds that dominate the meta at the time. Am sure if you took a group of best w40k players from around the world and droped them in to a tournament with GK, they would not achive much.
Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
It all comes down to tactics and target priority. GW's own Warhammer TV showed how Chaos could beat the IM/BA/IK list.
some chaos build (if you put into chaos the demons) can beat that list. put down 90 Pb's couple of Dp's 1 letter bombs and 1 pink horrors bomb and you ll see that list implode, i did twice in a row and im not a top tournament player, that happened too at HEAT2.
Maybe guys instead wait to read somewhere how beat some lists, should play more, i have the impression many who post here never been to a serious tournament or play just not competitive.
saw an article many years back, for a different game, written by a tournament winner on how he selected his faction.
he noted look at who won the previous year, expect to see a lot of newer players pick that faction as "its the best, it won!".
now look at who does well against that faction, expect to see more experienced players pick that, basically people who don't expect to win but want to win a few games.
he noted a top flight player can win with anything (this was a more balanced game), in 40k a top flight player can take a list from any of the decent factions and come up with a force that will work - ideally in a slightly unexpected way.
then you will see a lot of people try to copy the list, without the understanding of why it was put together that way, or how to really drive it
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
I actually find the imperial soup more boring than mono build Knights, Custodes even mono guard is less boring.
Each one shows of some level of player skill to pilot to multiple wins against a verity of lists.
Cherry picking the best tools from everything Imperium keyworded as per the last GT netlist doesn't show skill it shows someone just throwing money at the game to win.
A weak codex player like non Guilliman marines and GK's souping in some punch fine as those armies do need some help even in a casual meta. But knights pre FAQ, guard, eldar and tau codex's were fairly viable against each other even deathguard with some work could put up a good close game. Now some of those lists need soup for CP or have lost some of the limited synergies they had to bring them up to par.
Winning more than 3 games at ANY tournament with ANY list shows A LOT of skill. People get it into their heads that just taking these super powerful netlists comes with a free pass to the final table but it really really doesn't.
Once you've won enough games at a tournament to play the people who are ACTUALLY good at the game it doesn't really matter what list you're running. This is why you see exact carbon copies of every top tier list sitting in 50th+ place every single event.
Skills at 40k. Heres the list.
#1 - build a strong list that can handle most if not all expected threats
#2 - know all the rules for your own units and most if not all of your potential opponents.
#3 - get lucky - nothing wins a game easier than getting first turn and blowing up half your opponents army. Hope your opponent has bad luck and doesn't make all his 4+ and 5+ invun saves.
#4 - shoot weapons in the right order to ensure all your guns shoot at the most appropriate target (this is the first actual part of 40k skill that requires you to actually use your brain) though a quick check list can make this a no brainier easy (What units in my army have range to only 1 target - shoot those first and so on and so on until you've shot everything)
#5- deploy your army in the most beneficial way ( this is a real skill - mostly it involves placing your units to maximize cover saves while still being in an effective position to make change on the table.
#6 - knowing when you can table and opponent and when you have to play for objectives (this comes down to knowing if you are outmatched or not - basically this is the same as #2) Prioritize when to fight and when to cap (not that hard - about 95% you are better off killing).
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
leopard wrote: saw an article many years back, for a different game, written by a tournament winner on how he selected his faction.
he noted look at who won the previous year, expect to see a lot of newer players pick that faction as "its the best, it won!".
now look at who does well against that faction, expect to see more experienced players pick that, basically people who don't expect to win but want to win a few games.
he noted a top flight player can win with anything (this was a more balanced game), in 40k a top flight player can take a list from any of the decent factions and come up with a force that will work - ideally in a slightly unexpected way.
then you will see a lot of people try to copy the list, without the understanding of why it was put together that way, or how to really drive it
Well really - lists drive themselves. You are right about being sneaky with a list though. If you can get an unexpected list into the top table - you might have an easy win. For example. A list with 18 harliquen bikes and doom would have won vs IG/Castellan/BA very easily. I suspect you will see that list showing up to big events a lot soon. Plus - it's even less expected with the fly nerf.
Sequencing is a big area of skill, because it depends on foresight. An obvious example is, if i shoot with this weapon and he pulls casualties, i'll be out of range of my charge. A better player would say, "i'm not deep striking here because i'm going to shoot and inflict casualties." And an even better player would say, "i'm moving my force in a different direction as i have melee support on this side of my army. I can deep strike into a location here protecting my flank and prepare for a followup / risk free charge." All of this while taking into account secondaries and overall board control.
It's like saying there's no skill in chess because moving the individual pieces is easy. If you can think 20 moves in advance you're better than people who think 3 moves in advance. yet you both understand how the pieces move and the rules of the game.
"#1 - build a strong list that can handle most if not all expected threats "
White, but a better player can win with black
"#2 - know all the rules for your own units and most if not all of your potential opponents. "
Horsie can jump *Over* their small thingys!
"#3 - get lucky - nothing wins a game easier than getting first turn and blowing up half your opponents army. Hope your opponent has bad luck and doesn't make all his 4+ and 5+ invun saves. "
Gotta get lucky and be given white!
"#4 - shoot weapons in the right order to ensure all your guns shoot at the most appropriate target (this is the first actual part of 40k skill that requires you to actually use your brain) though a quick check list can make this a no brainier easy (What units in my army have range to only 1 target - shoot those first and so on and so on until you've shot everything) "
Gotta move the pawns in front before you move them power pieces. Except for horsie!
"#5- deploy your army in the most beneficial way ( this is a real skill - mostly it involves placing your units to maximize cover saves while still being in an effective position to make change on the table. "
Move your pieces in the most beneficial way - mostly involves placing your pieces to maximize your chances to take their pieces off the board!
"#6 - knowing when you can table and opponent and when you have to play for objectives (this comes down to knowing if you are outmatched or not - basically this is the same as #2) Prioritize when to fight and when to cap (not that hard - about 95% you are better off killing). "
Knowing when to win and when to play for the draw.
It's that easy. Do those 6 things, and you're a grand master!
Everything is easy when you don't know what you're talking about!
Also, horsie needs a buff! Why can't it move *4* squares! Rooks get to move *8*! I'ts mathematically the worst unit in the game!
Pawns only get to move 2 squares once per game and are thereafter limited to 1 square. I'm pretty sure that that makes them the worst unit in the game.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Pawns only get to move 2 squares once per game and are thereafter limited to 1 square. I'm pretty sure that that makes them the worst unit in the game.
But Pawns can be promoted. You don't even have to pay reinforcement points for the promotion!
Leo_the_Rat wrote: That doesn't mean that they're not the worst unit. It just means that they have the potential to become more powerful under the guise of another unit.
Pawns are competitive only if you have a queen, doesn't mean that pawns are fine. It's just the queen which is OP and carries the faction, but if it wasn't for the dumb limit of 1 on the queen, we would be playing "Codex: Queens".
The second you promote a pawn to a queen, you're not playing mono chess, which I officially declare to have more value than soup based chess. I never promote my pawns, I let them reach the edge of the board with nothing to attack, totally unable to move.
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
Skills at 40k. Heres the list.
#1 - build a strong list that can handle most if not all expected threats
#2 - know all the rules for your own units and most if not all of your potential opponents.
#3 - get lucky - nothing wins a game easier than getting first turn and blowing up half your opponents army. Hope your opponent has bad luck and doesn't make all his 4+ and 5+ invun saves.
#4 - shoot weapons in the right order to ensure all your guns shoot at the most appropriate target (this is the first actual part of 40k skill that requires you to actually use your brain) though a quick check list can make this a no brainier easy (What units in my army have range to only 1 target - shoot those first and so on and so on until you've shot everything)
#5- deploy your army in the most beneficial way ( this is a real skill - mostly it involves placing your units to maximize cover saves while still being in an effective position to make change on the table.
#6 - knowing when you can table and opponent and when you have to play for objectives (this comes down to knowing if you are outmatched or not - basically this is the same as #2) Prioritize when to fight and when to cap (not that hard - about 95% you are better off killing).
The most important point is not in the list:
#7 - ability to read the game and think/plan one or two turns ahead. If you're able to read what the enemy is doing a turn, you will be ahead no matter what.
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
And orks are obviously so much more interesting. Or tyranids. Lol.
Cherrypicking best units from codexes is way more boring. Those tournament lists don't soup because it's more interesting but because it gives them MOA POWAAAH!
So that's *expected* 1152 shots of poison to kill that many 3+ 2W.
That's 200 shots per turn.
Assuming ALWAYS rapid fire range.
6 units of Kabalites with blaster put out 48 shots per turn.
6 venoms with splinter cannons put out 72 shots per turn.
And we're essentially half way there. Assuming you're running 2 Archons (cheapest HQ available and staying Kabal) that's a minimum of 920 points. To get you *half* way there, and assuming that NONE of these models die over the course of a 6 turn game. Oh yeah and always rapid fire. Every turn. OH right, one final thing. None of the 3+ guys were ever in cover. EVER.
So yeah, i call BS
You call BS, I call BS on you calling BS. I know what I saw happening to my poor orks getting that 320+ models getting vaporized by poison that I could literally do zero to stop. The amount of poison shots rerolling hits or wounding on 2+ is just sick. Those 320+ models never stood a chance. Wipeout was foregone conclusion and only thing it didn't happen is that I threw in towel halfway his turn 4. What was left would be wiped out by next turn short of super icy cold dice.
This despite icy cold dice on first turn leaving rather mild damage barring destruction of 3 KMK's.
You want a net list. Sorry, I don't really play BA, just know how to look things up.
And that was 5 DC with TH +Sang, Just an example comparing BA to what I normally run that was roughly equal.
How Many Orks? 20 or so? Orks are basically on par with any SM in HTH both hitting on 3+. Of course, Orks get more attacks, but SM have better armor so it evens out. Maybe your oponant forgot the extra wound from being charged?
Lets compare basic Tacticals between base SM and BA: same points, same statline, BA get Red Thirst (+1W in charge situations), BA get Defenders of Humanity (Claim Objectives even if out numbered), BA get access to Inferno Pistol, Base SM get nada.
Advantage BA.
If your only tactic is to leap over intervening units to hit the heavier units behind them, use actual fliers maybe? Or you could drop in a couple Land speeders for roughly the same price each as the Slammies, with better toughness, Better speed, more wounds, and better damage potential, and if you use 3 you get a speed boost.
It's not my job, really, to tell you how to make a list. It's on you to read the materials on your army and make your own list, play a few games, make adjustments... etc...
Just like everyone else.
Adapt and overcome.
BA didnt have a good start. Dante, our chapter master, is expensive and doesnt give extra CPs, like other chapter masters do. Baal predators cant use killshot, like regular preds can. Baal preds cant use the lucifer engines stratagem and fire their flamers, because you must advance, and all the flamers are heavy weapons. SM in general are expensive and squishy. BA got a boost in the april FAQ when FLY ignored vertical distance, which is now nerfed again. BA are JP experts, they should at least get a small advantage over vanilla marines with JP. Right now we are as good as they are, which is wrong. Red thirst is useless for dreadnoughts against T6-7 and less, because they already wound on 2s, and red thirst is only when charged, or being charged. Other SM chapter dreadnoughts benefit from their CT all the time. Our CT red thirst is pretty weak, because it only works in melee (we have to get there first, which has been nerfed by no more deepstrike T1, and no more ignore vertical distances when charging), and only one turn, when charging, being charged, or on heroic intervention. Next turn, still in melee, no more +1 to wound. And upon wings of fire for 2 CP now is a joke as well, the same cost for moving a single model, or a 15 model DC unit to another spot ?
tneva82 wrote: So show me some BA lists like that that do well in competitions. Your home games don't count. Talk here is when people aren't fielding piss poor lists for fun
5 DC+sang? Dead meat. Especially now. You charge IG infantry squad(only thing IG allows you to charge now that flyers can't ignore screen) and then blows them up. DC isn't even particularly tough one. I have ran over 10 with ork boyz. They hit fine but don't take damage well. Before it could work when they could charge past screens so might actually hit something worthwhile but now...well orks will stop them with grots and then charge up with boyz and kill 'em. And if ORKS can deal with them poor fellows seeing how underpowered orks are.
You want a net list. Sorry, I don't really play BA, just know how to look things up.
And that was 5 DC with TH +Sang, Just an example comparing BA to what I normally run that was roughly equal.
How Many Orks? 20 or so? Orks are basically on par with any SM in HTH both hitting on 3+. Of course, Orks get more attacks, but SM have better armor so it evens out. Maybe your oponant forgot the extra wound from being charged?
Lets compare basic Tacticals between base SM and BA: same points, same statline, BA get Red Thirst (+1W in charge situations), BA get Defenders of Humanity (Claim Objectives even if out numbered), BA get access to Inferno Pistol, Base SM get nada.
Advantage BA.
If your only tactic is to leap over intervening units to hit the heavier units behind them, use actual fliers maybe? Or you could drop in a couple Land speeders for roughly the same price each as the Slammies, with better toughness, Better speed, more wounds, and better damage potential, and if you use 3 you get a speed boost.
It's not my job, really, to tell you how to make a list. It's on you to read the materials on your army and make your own list, play a few games, make adjustments... etc...
Just like everyone else.
Adapt and overcome.
Aaah how nice of you. "I'm right, all the tournament experts with years of experience are wrong because I say so".
And lol you are comparing against base SM? Who says base SM is good either? MARINES SUCK in competive game. Only thing blood angels had in them was smashcaptain. Now that's nerfed they are in same boat as base SM. Out of competition when lists are tuned up to the max.
Land speeders...You seriously suggest those overpriced models that can't move and shoot their guns without suffering -1 to hit? Better damage potential...Show me same price speeders blowing up knight in a turn. That's what slamquinus could do. That's what speeders need to do to have "better damage potential". And btw hope you don't say "if I roll max on all dices" as potential as that's the most stupid way to compare. On that logic GROTS are the most broken thing as they outshoot anything per point.
Better toughness btw is irrelevant when you can't be shot like slamquinus could. Speed? DS 9" from enemy, 3d6" charge. That's basically infinite speed as it can go from quarter of table to ither quarter.
Seriously it's very hard to take you seriously when you are praising about LAND SPEEDERS or compare BA to base SM when base SM is so lol bad at high end power lists.
Howabout go play a game or two with top list enviroment and have your army wiped out. That gives you idea of what level of powers we are talking. Gives you better idea of the game.
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
What's his list?
Does it matter? It's a team tournament. Lots of crazy lists there.
Skills at 40k. Heres the list.
#1 - build a strong list that can handle most if not all expected threats
#2 - know all the rules for your own units and most if not all of your potential opponents.
#3 - get lucky - nothing wins a game easier than getting first turn and blowing up half your opponents army. Hope your opponent has bad luck and doesn't make all his 4+ and 5+ invun saves.
#4 - shoot weapons in the right order to ensure all your guns shoot at the most appropriate target (this is the first actual part of 40k skill that requires you to actually use your brain) though a quick check list can make this a no brainier easy (What units in my army have range to only 1 target - shoot those first and so on and so on until you've shot everything)
#5- deploy your army in the most beneficial way ( this is a real skill - mostly it involves placing your units to maximize cover saves while still being in an effective position to make change on the table.
#6 - knowing when you can table and opponent and when you have to play for objectives (this comes down to knowing if you are outmatched or not - basically this is the same as #2) Prioritize when to fight and when to cap (not that hard - about 95% you are better off killing).
The most important point is not in the list:
#7 - ability to read the game and think/plan one or two turns ahead. If you're able to read what the enemy is doing a turn, you will be ahead no matter what.
Well - that is kinda of part of knowing the rules of the game. Knowing what units can do - what they will do is basically automatic. Good advice though. However - IMO - 40k is much more like checkers than chess.
"#1 - build a strong list that can handle most if not all expected threats "
White, but a better player can win with black
"#2 - know all the rules for your own units and most if not all of your potential opponents. "
Horsie can jump *Over* their small thingys!
"#3 - get lucky - nothing wins a game easier than getting first turn and blowing up half your opponents army. Hope your opponent has bad luck and doesn't make all his 4+ and 5+ invun saves. "
Gotta get lucky and be given white!
"#4 - shoot weapons in the right order to ensure all your guns shoot at the most appropriate target (this is the first actual part of 40k skill that requires you to actually use your brain) though a quick check list can make this a no brainier easy (What units in my army have range to only 1 target - shoot those first and so on and so on until you've shot everything) "
Gotta move the pawns in front before you move them power pieces. Except for horsie!
"#5- deploy your army in the most beneficial way ( this is a real skill - mostly it involves placing your units to maximize cover saves while still being in an effective position to make change on the table. "
Move your pieces in the most beneficial way - mostly involves placing your pieces to maximize your chances to take their pieces off the board!
"#6 - knowing when you can table and opponent and when you have to play for objectives (this comes down to knowing if you are outmatched or not - basically this is the same as #2) Prioritize when to fight and when to cap (not that hard - about 95% you are better off killing). "
Knowing when to win and when to play for the draw.
It's that easy. Do those 6 things, and you're a grand master!
Everything is easy when you don't know what you're talking about!
Also, horsie needs a buff! Why can't it move *4* squares! Rooks get to move *8*! I'ts mathematically the worst unit in the game!
How can you compare 40k to chess? Chess is more like a puzzle than a war game. It's incredibly in depth - requiring incredible foresight. In fact - it is so in depth a human will never beat a super AI at it. A super AI wouldn't beat me more than 50% of the time if I just follow that list in the most basic way I described it above. The game is dice. Understand that - and you become a master at 40k.
Asmodios wrote: and we are still going to see 10/10 soup builds in the top 10 of every major tournament
I don't really see a problem here. People like knights - knights as a mono army is pretty boring. People like IG. IG as a mono army can be boring. People like Custodes. Custodes as a mono army is pretty boring.
And orks are obviously so much more interesting. Or tyranids. Lol.
Cherrypicking best units from codexes is way more boring. Those tournament lists don't soup because it's more interesting but because it gives them MOA POWAAAH!
So that's *expected* 1152 shots of poison to kill that many 3+ 2W.
That's 200 shots per turn. Assuming ALWAYS rapid fire range.
6 units of Kabalites with blaster put out 48 shots per turn. 6 venoms with splinter cannons put out 72 shots per turn.
And we're essentially half way there. Assuming you're running 2 Archons (cheapest HQ available and staying Kabal) that's a minimum of 920 points. To get you *half* way there, and assuming that NONE of these models die over the course of a 6 turn game. Oh yeah and always rapid fire. Every turn. OH right, one final thing. None of the 3+ guys were ever in cover. EVER.
So yeah, i call BS
You call BS, I call BS on you calling BS. I know what I saw happening to my poor orks getting that 320+ models getting vaporized by poison that I could literally do zero to stop. The amount of poison shots rerolling hits or wounding on 2+ is just sick. Those 320+ models never stood a chance. Wipeout was foregone conclusion and only thing it didn't happen is that I threw in towel halfway his turn 4. What was left would be wiped out by next turn short of super icy cold dice.
This despite icy cold dice on first turn leaving rather mild damage barring destruction of 3 KMK's.
Deathwatch wounds on 2s with their poison, that's true. But that's entirely different math for a different faction, and they are super elite and expensive, so they need to pump out the damage before they're wiped from the table.
Dark Eldar wound on 4s though. If someone is wounding you on 2s with their splinter weapons... that is cheating.
Its a lot easier to say something is easy (even if it is) than actually manage to do it. Keeping everything in mind over the course of 5 games is what separates the good players from the rest.
If we ever reached the stage of "professional 40k players" then the shallowness of the game might become apparent - although we have professional sports where people screw up every day.Right now this is an amateur hobby. The number of people taking it vaguely seriously, even at tournaments, is very low.
Well - that is kinda of part of knowing the rules of the game. Knowing what units can do - what they will do is basically automatic. Good advice though. However - IMO - 40k is much more like checkers than chess.
No, its not like knowing the rules.
The top players can read the game. Their intuition to make the right decisions is something one hardly can learn.
As someone who goes to tournaments, I can tell you that it's better off not being played at the eSports level.
Video game eSports are much easier to police and patrol, because the input is restricted, and the math and results are handled by a computer.
40k is a game that depends on good faith. It is a prerequisite to have a good game. It is *incredibly easy* to lie to your opponent, fudge results, etc. If you've gone to a tournament at some point in your gaming lifetime, you've probably lost a game. After losing that game, you probably went and looked up your opponent's rules, and found they had made an egregious error. For example, casting Guide on a squad of Reapers in a Bastion. In general I find that people make mostly honest mistakes, but then you get guys like Team Happy who are pushing the envelope wherever they can, in an effort to screw you over. To make this game truly viable as an eSport, they would need officials at the game tables, monitoring to make sure rules were followed.
In general the game is more enjoyable if you think of it as playing with someone, rather than against them. Win or lose, tournaments are fun because you meet new people. When I started 40k, it was with 1 other guy. Now, i have about 12 good friends i've made playing the game. You might think there aren't like minded people at tournaments, there are, you just need to separate your ego from the results and go to have a good time. It's actually a healthy environment when everyone is trying to win, but personally disconnected from the outcome.
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
What's his list?
Does it matter? It's a team tournament. Lots of crazy lists there.
It was an Aeldari Soup list and Nick was the overall points leader, just ahead of one of his teammates.... The rest of the team was middle to bottom of the pack.
You can look his list up yourself, there are maybe a dozen places with the tourney lists.
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
What's his list?
Does it matter? It's a team tournament. Lots of crazy lists there.
Well, yeah. I'm curious to see what this uber list is that others can't stand against, retro-actively figure out how to crack, etc. It's must be a thing a wonder, right? So if you'd just point me in the right direction...
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
What's his list?
Does it matter? It's a team tournament. Lots of crazy lists there.
Well, yeah. I'm curious to see what this uber list is that others can't stand against, retro-actively figure out how to crack, etc. It's must be a thing a wonder, right? So if you'd just point me in the right direction...
It's more complicated than that as because its a team event you have hammer lists, balanced and anvil lists. Hammer lists pick a target enemy list and try to put up big scores, Anvil lists are designed to loose by as little points as possible. Balanced lists can be either depending upon the match up.
Also balanced means something diffrent to balanced in a conventional individual tournament.
helgrenze wrote: Soup is only at the top because none of the Netlisters who created those soup lists want to tell people how to beat them.
Weird thing to say given that some top players like Nick Nanavati run blogs that give advice on list building and turn-by-turn play. The best players in this community aren't exactly a secret cabal hording all the information and tactics.
Let me know when he posts on how to beat his ATC list.
What's his list?
Does it matter? It's a team tournament. Lots of crazy lists there.
Well, yeah. I'm curious to see what this uber list is that others can't stand against, retro-actively figure out how to crack, etc. It's must be a thing a wonder, right? So if you'd just point me in the right direction...
Of course all this does is lose the original point that Netlist makers will tell you everything about the "Superlist" they made including how to play it, but they won't tell you how to beat their list.
== Outrider Detachment ==
HQ 6: Yvraine the Cat Lady (132) (WL- Tenacious Survivr) (Word of the phoenix, Ancestor’s Grace) [7pl] [132pts]
FA 2: 9 Shining Spears (31*8=247) Exarch with star lance (34) <saim hann> [14pl] [281pts]
FA 3: 9 Shining Spears (31*8=247) Exarch with star lance (34) <saim hann> [14pl] [281pts]
FA 4: 5 Swooping Hawk (13*5=65) <biel tan> [3pl] [65pts]
Heavy Support 1: 8 Dark Reapers (34*7=238) Exarch with Tempest Launcher (39) <aliatoc> [13pl] [277pts]
Of course all this does is lose the original point that Netlist makers will tell you everything about the "Superlist" they made including how to play it, but they won't tell you how to beat their list.
why someone should tell you how to beat his list? play and learn
Things would have been worse for you against an Endless Fury though. 
