It's kind of a nice anti-anti-meta list (that can still kill knights). Everyone is taking knights so people take haywire and knight killers and no real horde clearing.
He took DE w/ Farseer on round 3....the haywire and ravagers didn't have anything to shoot.
Knights and loyal 32 on round 2.
And DE again on round 1.
It's taking them a while to finish updating the third round.
The Salt Mine wrote: Where can you find the lists I'm looking on BCP and not finding how to see the lists.
You have to get the phone app and pay the monthly fee ($5), unfortunately.
Figured as much. I guess Ill just wait then!
You don't need the monthly fee to see lists while the event is happening. I have the phone app, pay no fee, and can see the lists. You just click the little green paper image by a player's name.
Also, the current Top 10 are:
1. CSM (Daemon Princes, lots of Cultists, some Obliterators)
2. Blood Angels (no Captain Slamguinus or Knight Castellan, instead Librarian/Lemartes/Dreadnought HQ's and a Crusader)
3. Tau (Riptides and battalions)
4. Astra Militarum (Standard Imperial Soup: AM for CP and bodies, assault element, this time 3 Custodes Jetbike Captains and a Castellan)
5. Drukhari (Wracks, Grotesques, Flyers, allied battalion with Eldrad)
6. Asuryani (Psykers, Yvraine, 3 Crimson Hunters, 3 Razorwings)
7. Genestealer Cult (Index) (Psykers, Aberrants, Genestealers from an allied Hive Fleet)
8. Tau (Riptides, Broadsides)
9. Orks (Evil Sunz) (Like, everything that's in the Codex from the looks of it, this is just too big to try and summarize)
10. Necrons (Catacomb Command Barge, Ghost Arks, Doomsday Arks)
You don't need the monthly fee to see lists while the event is happening. I have the phone app, pay no fee, and can see the lists. You just click the little green paper image by a player's name.
You don't need the monthly fee to see lists while the event is happening. I have the phone app, pay no fee, and can see the lists. You just click the little green paper image by a player's name.
Ah cool - I did not know that!
Yeah it's handy, but you gotta remember to write down anything interesting before it's over, haha!
Booger ork wrote: Really cool to see such a wide variety of lists in the top ten, shows that the game is becoming really quite balanced
I'd hold off on that conclusion until the tournament's done. The only really surprising thing in the top 10 at the moment is Necrons and possibly BA but with a tournament this big it can take a little longer for the top lists to rise to the top just due to the sheer number of players. It's also wise to not take the army definition at face value. It appears the armies classified as Drukhari and AM are your standard soup armies, for example.
The only lists in the current top ten that surprise me are the Necrons.
This CSM list is Ahriman and friends + mini Tzaangor bomb + Abby Cultists and oblits.
The 'BA' list is imperial soup. There's just a Crusader instead of Castellan and it uses the Emps Wrath Artillery detachment with 3 Basilisks and 6 HW squads. Standard stuff. I guess the HQs are slightly interesting choices?
The 3rd place Tau list is Riptide party using Tau and Sacea sept. Given the CA drops for Tau I'm not surprised.
The most interesting thing about the Imperial Soup list at 4th place is that it takes Conscripts (which dakka claim are unplayable) and rough riders. It also uses Valhallan doctrine.
Dark Eldar are one of the few factions to have legitimate variation in competitive lists in my opinion. Of course KotBH is there. As are Grotesques. Eldrad is probably taken again because of the huge points drop in CA.
I think the Ynarri list is interesting because it has no Dark Reapers or Shining Spears. It also has wind riders (CA drops again?). 6 flyers, half of which are -2 to hit is gross.
There's probably no point discussing the GSC list as the army has been overhauled but needless to say the codex has increased their strength and they currently sit in the top 10 of LVO.
As Audustum said above this Tau list is Riptides and Broadsides. Not surprising at all given the point cuts Tau enjoyed in CA.
Nick Nanavati Orks. Right so apart from Weirdboyz (he has 3), all of his HQ choices are index (MA Warboss, Big Mek and Boss on Bike). 3 x batt. Bad Moon Loota star with a few less bodies than max (22 instead of 25). He hasn't put relics/WL traits on his sheet but the MA Warboss is his WL. Then you have 114 boyz (3 x 10 and 3 x 28) and 74 grots (2 x 27 and 1 x 20). The only interesting unit to me here is the meganobz. Otherwise it's a green tide list with Loota star. I'd be interested to see how he gets around his need to mob up both boys and lootas on turn 1.
The Necron list blows my mind but I guess its down to some CA drops? Am I right in thinking Immortals became more attractive?
Currently in the top 51 (joint 50th place) we have 1 Necron champ (who I hope wins), 2 GSC players, 3 Tau players, 4 Ork players, 6 chaos players (combining CSM, TS, DG and daemons), 15 Aeldari players (Ynarri, DE, CW mostly the former 2), 20 Imperium players (including Knights, AM, Marines and Ad Mech).
Audustum wrote: 2. Blood Angels (no Captain Slamguinus or Knight Castellan, instead Librarian/Lemartes/Dreadnought HQ's and a Crusader)
Death company / sanguinary guard, or just scouts and characters supported by other factions? I was helping a friend with some BA stuff recently and they have an impressive range of glass-ish cannon options.
Necrons are certainly a bit out of left field, but it's also "just" day 1. Things will get a lot tougher from here on in.
I'm pretty sure Eldrad just dropped 15 points in CA, it's just that it wasn't needed but GW want their named characters to be auto-includes. (blech)
The orks work because they're so anti-meta right now I assume, alongside being pilotd by arguably the best 40k player out there. I still feel like that list is no longer viable when the beta bolter rule is in effect and the GSC codex comes out.
The emperors wrath artillery detachment is going to become a staple I think, it's just a good detchment and considering the wonky LoS rules that ITC uses it'll always guarantee some shots to be fired.
IK are still plentiful but I hope for a poorer showing here than previous big tournaments as I feel IK are somewhat of a self-fulfiling prophecy. You want that Castellan because everyone brings knights. A switch to a horde meta like Nick (and others) are doing basically invalidates or strongly discourages the Castellan. Fewer Castellans might mean a lot more Gallants though and those are still underosted by a fair bit as well IMO
Well, good players realized soon that DR and SP point increase is hurting the army to much. You just cant get enough infantry or knight kill power. Of course sadly that force you to get a bunch of flyers.
Marin wrote: Well, good players realized soon that DR and SP point increase is hurting the army to much. You just cant get enough infantry or knight kill power. Of course sadly that force you to get a bunch of flyers.
The current joint 8th player (with Nick Nanavati Orks) has 18 Shining Spears and 10 Dark Reapers. There are also multiple, high placed Ynarri lists running both units. I don't think it's "hurting" the army at all.
I'd be real careful about making some sweeping generalised statements about the armies after day 1. A lot of people have gone 3-0 and the true tests start now.
On a personal level I'd be shocked if there's not at least one craftworlds/ynnari list in the top 8 when it's all said & done
Wych Cults are by far the weakest part of the Drukhari codex, big blobs of Wyches deep striking in can be good for clearing infantry, but Kabal and Coven do it better and anti tank wise all they've got is flyers, which gain no benefit from being part of the Cults so might as well be Black Heart. Then there's Reavers and Hellions, which are aweful units.
Mr Morden wrote: Thanks but went onto the site but the subsrcibe pull down asks me to have a free trail or pay - I am signed into my Amazon Prime account
Booger ork wrote: Really cool to see such a wide variety of lists in the top ten, shows that the game is becoming really quite balanced
It really doesn't. But it will allow people to peddle that snake oil more and ignore most of the issues that still linger.
Of course there are still issues, but people whining here on dakka about how certain armies are unplayable can be shown otherwise. I think that true balance is impossible to achieve in a game as broad as warhammer 40,000, so a list like this is pretty close to what can best be expected. If mono SM lists can go 3-0 at a big tournament like this then it means the problems aren't nearly as bad as some make them out to be
Booger ork wrote: Really cool to see such a wide variety of lists in the top ten, shows that the game is becoming really quite balanced
It really doesn't. But it will allow people to peddle that snake oil more and ignore most of the issues that still linger.
Of course there are still issues, but people whining here on dakka about how certain armies are unplayable can be shown otherwise. I think that true balance is impossible to achieve in a game as broad as warhammer 40,000, so a list like this is pretty close to what can best be expected. If mono SM lists can go 3-0 at a big tournament like this then it means the problems aren't nearly as bad as some make them out to be
Yes the gap between armies is much smaller then Dakka makes it out to be (this does not mean there aren't balance issues, simply that the game isn't over because you doing play x fotm build). If you look at top 10-top50 at these tournaments as well you will see a wide range of lists and builds. As GW gathers more data from tournaments like this it will get closer and closer to balance. Just look at 40kstats.com and the amount or armies that fall into the 45%-55% win rate which is as close to perfect balance as your going to get in a game with this many variables.
People keep saying "GSC in the top 10" but what you really mean is a nid list in the top ten that allies in 2 abominants which have been heavily nerfed in the codex. The entirety of that one 'gsc' list that's been doing well is that abominants were stupidly cheap and great at murdering knights, that's it. The codex gave them -1 to hit and made their points cost more balanced. They're still a good unit, but pretending 'GSC is doing great' because of one undercosted character that works in the meta because it was very good at killing knights cheaply is a bit of a stretch.
Danny slag wrote: People keep saying "GSC in the top 10" but what you really mean is a nid list in the top ten that allies in 2 abominants which have been heavily nerfed in the codex. The entirety of that one 'gsc' list that's been doing well is that abominants were stupidly cheap and great at murdering knights, that's it. The codex gave them -1 to hit and made their points cost more balanced. They're still a good unit, but pretending 'GSC is doing great' because of one undercosted character that works in the meta because it was very good at killing knights cheaply is a bit of a stretch.
He payed 90 points less for the old abominant and 33 more for aberrants. 57 points isn't a massive advantage. The list is 800 points in nids and the rest in GSC. It's nowhere near "nids that allied in 2 abominants".
The CSM list is so horrible, it's only viable because of the time limit, it's basically a slow play tarpit list. It might kill some stuff, but playing it would make me claw my eyes out. I'll be surprised if it actually gets to a top table.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: The CSM list is so horrible, it's only viable because of the time limit, it's basically a slow play tarpit list. It might kill some stuff, but playing it would make me claw my eyes out. I'll be surprised if it actually gets to a top table.
Hopefully it doesn’t make it. It would suck to see an army do well just because of a time limit rule.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: The CSM list is so horrible, it's only viable because of the time limit, it's basically a slow play tarpit list. It might kill some stuff, but playing it would make me claw my eyes out. I'll be surprised if it actually gets to a top table.
Considering he pretty much tabled his opponent with plenty of time to spare I think its pretty good at killing stuff and not a slow play list.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: The CSM list is so horrible, it's only viable because of the time limit, it's basically a slow play tarpit list. It might kill some stuff, but playing it would make me claw my eyes out. I'll be surprised if it actually gets to a top table.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: The CSM list is so horrible, it's only viable because of the time limit, it's basically a slow play tarpit list. It might kill some stuff, but playing it would make me claw my eyes out. I'll be surprised if it actually gets to a top table.
Considering he pretty much tabled his opponent with plenty of time to spare I think its pretty good at killing stuff and not a slow play list.
Yea, Mike was down to like 12 minutes and his opponent was 18 near the end of the game.
Did you see the drama on the oblits though? I am pretty curious how that pans out I was always under the assumption that they had to reroll if they were subject to the shoot twice strat. However after looking into it a bit more I could easily see the arguments for not having too.
There's also an illegal detachment up there also, 'Thousand Sons' army with an SC detachment using 2 Poxbringers, Warpsmith, Blightlord Terminators and Mortarion. Currently sitting at #3.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: There's also an illegal detachment up there also, 'Thousand Sons' army with an SC detachment using 2 Poxbringers, Warpsmith, Blightlord Terminators and Mortarion. Currently sitting at #3.
If that Warpsmith has Mark of Nurgle then it gives him the nurgle keyword and that makes the detatchment legal.
The Salt Mine wrote: If that Warpsmith has Mark of Nurgle then it gives him the nurgle keyword and that makes the detatchment legal.
So that would be the non-Chaos faction keyword tying the detachment together, interesting. I didn't think you could do that, but I'm happy to be wrong as it opens up a lot of possibilities.
The Salt Mine wrote: If that Warpsmith has Mark of Nurgle then it gives him the nurgle keyword and that makes the detatchment legal.
So that would be the non-Chaos faction keyword tying the detachment together, interesting. I didn't think you could do that, but I'm happy to be wrong as it opens up a lot of possibilities.
Yea, same thing can be done with Thousand Sons and Tzeentch Daemons under Tzeentch. It's just not usually worth it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fourth round looks to be all in now.
Bobby& IG making use of a big squad of bikes in 12th.
The GK hero dropped to the 200s with a narrow loss to IG & Smash Captains - no knights.
Some pretty interesting lists in the top 10. The one from Justin Curtis is really just messing with me I can't wrap my head around what some of these choices are for lol.
Ordana wrote: Tournaments regularly set a cut of date for new GW stuff, you don't want people to be surprised by last minute new info being sprung on them.
Oh agreed, but I figured it might have been minor enough to sneak through. Then again everyone practiced without that in mind, so, probably unfair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Salt Mine wrote: Some pretty interesting lists in the top 10. The one from Justin Curtis is really just messing with me I can't wrap my head around what some of these choices are for lol.
Well, the warpsmith basically has a mini-smite that goes off more easily and a BS2 melta shot. For 60 points it's stupid cheap.
I also don't get how that is a 1kson list his supreme command detatchment with all the nurgle stuff is almost 200 more points more than the 1ksons. Isn't your "army" your highest point detatchment in ITC?
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOL the drama in this T'au vs Admech game just got real.
The Salt Mine wrote: I also don't get how that is a 1kson list his supreme command detatchment with all the nurgle stuff is almost 200 more points more than the 1ksons. Isn't your "army" your highest point detatchment in ITC?
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOL the drama in this T'au vs Admech game just got real.
The Salt Mine wrote: I also don't get how that is a 1kson list his supreme command detatchment with all the nurgle stuff is almost 200 more points more than the 1ksons. Isn't your "army" your highest point detatchment in ITC?
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOL the drama in this T'au vs Admech game just got real.
What happened for those of us that missed it
Someone can probably sum it up better than me for the ones more familiar with House Raven rules but i'll try to get the jist of it.
Ad Mech player got a lucky seize and was stomping the Tau player. Tau player made a mis-move earlier in the game and the Ad Mech wouldn't let him do a re-do.
Later in the game, the Ad Mech player spent 3 command points to make his Castellan's weapons count as assault so he could advance and still shoot. He advanced 1'' to try and get LoS on the Broadsides.
Tau player pointed out he couldn't use that power or something because it was the wrong house. I'm unsure on this part because I don't know their rules well. He was correct so the ad-mech player asked for a re-do, so he could both undo the advance and get his command points back.
Tau player said no, which is fair because he did the same earlier.
Admech player started getting really angry, red faced etc. Judge was called over and said the Castellan advanced so it can't shoot and no re-do but he does get the command points back.
Personally I don't think he should have got the command points back because he had already declared he was using them.
The Salt Mine wrote: I also don't get how that is a 1kson list his supreme command detatchment with all the nurgle stuff is almost 200 more points more than the 1ksons. Isn't your "army" your highest point detatchment in ITC?
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOL the drama in this T'au vs Admech game just got real.
What happened for those of us that missed it
Someone can probably sum it up better than me for the ones more familiar with House Raven rules but i'll try to get the jist of it.
Ad Mech player got a lucky seize and was stomping the Tau player. Tau player made a mis-move earlier in the game and the Ad Mech wouldn't let him do a re-do.
Later in the game, the Ad Mech player spent 3 command points to make his Castellan's weapons count as assault so he could advance and still shoot. He advanced 1'' to try and get LoS on the Broadsides.
Tau player pointed out he couldn't use that power or something because it was the wrong house. I'm unsure on this part because I don't know their rules well. He was correct so the ad-mech player asked for a re-do, so he could both undo the advance and get his command points back.
Tau player said no, which is fair because he did the same earlier.
Admech player started getting really angry, red faced etc. Judge was called over and said the Castellan advanced so it can't shoot and no re-do but he does get the command points back.
Personally I don't think he should have got the command points back because he had already declared he was using them.
Game was pretty tense for the next 2 turns or so.
As much as it’s nice to see someone who won’t do a take back have karma bite them back I do agree that In that situation he should get his CP back as he couldn’t legally spend them as he wouldn’t have access to the stratagem he spent them on. It’s like a tau player saying “I spend 4CP on vect” the judge rules that he doesn’t have access, thus the stratagem doesn’t go off but at the same time he wouldn’t have spent them. I was unable to watch the game tonight so I’ll have to watch the replay in the morning to see what happened
Well a couple guys from my area are showing nicely.I think they each have lost only once out of 6 rounds.
So this time last year I read so many articles on the mess that Eldar made of LVO and how the sky was falling. It only took a Big FAQ, some dexes and the Eldar are hated but not the sky falling any more.
This year I do not see anything close to that. I guess the Knight Lists and the loyal 32 are about the only thing even close to that....but it is pale compared to the hate last year.
As much as it’s nice to see someone who won’t do a take back have karma bite them back I do agree that In that situation he should get his CP back as he couldn’t legally spend them as he wouldn’t have access to the stratagem he spent them on. It’s like a tau player saying “I spend 4CP on vect” the judge rules that he doesn’t have access, thus the stratagem doesn’t go off but at the same time he wouldn’t have spent them. I was unable to watch the game tonight so I’ll have to watch the replay in the morning to see what happened
He still has access to the strats just doesn't get the household trait. I wonder how many of his first 5 games he did that in.
That Tau Admech game sounds like they tried to advance and shoot (Ravens trait allows this) and then use the ubiquitous shoot way better Raven strategem but if the knight was in an auxiliary detachment they don't benefit from the trait.
admironheart wrote: Well a couple guys from my area are showing nicely.I think they each have lost only once out of 6 rounds.
So this time last year I read so many articles on the mess that Eldar made of LVO and how the sky was falling. It only took a Big FAQ, some dexes and the Eldar are hated but not the sky falling any more.
This year I do not see anything close to that. I guess the Knight Lists and the loyal 32 are about the only thing even close to that....but it is pale compared to the hate last year.
Any other impressions?
Yea, I have another impression; the meta is basically exactly the same as last year with, to no one's surprise, Imperial Soup (Guard + Castellan) and Ynarri absolutely dominating, again. The only real change is that Ad Mech and Tau are now capable of entering the top 10 no doubt because they had massive reductions on the cost of their units.
Also would you look at that, a pure Space Marine army in the top 10 without bolter rules active. I guess they aren't as bad as the hundreds of pages of posts on here would have you believe.
No Orks in the top ten, not a surprise to me but I know it will be to some of you. Almost like they don't have the tools to compete at the top tables, or something given they enjoy some of the best pilots the game has to offer.
Here's the top ten;
1. Astra Militarum (including Conscripts for all you naysayers), Custodes and Castellan.
2. Ad Mech, Astra Militarum and Castellan.
3. Ynarri list of 7 flyers....
4. Astra Militarum brigade (taking 8 Infantry squads because they are soooo good) and a Castellan.
5. Ynarri list (using Wyches for whoever asked about that earlier).
6. Tau (Riptide wing with a few Kroot thrown in).
7. Astra Militarum (standard) and Knights (Warglaives + Cerastus Lancer).
8. Pure Space Marine list (using a large mixed detachment with tanks, BA and Guilliman).
9. Chaos Demons (mixed gods, mostly Nurgle focus) and TS (obligatory Ahriman supreme command). Lots of points for summoning/deep striking that I can't see (600 or so).
10. Ynarri (Dissie Ravager and Crimson Hunter spam).
Astra Militarum feature in 4 lists of the top ten (and a pure AM list finished 11th for anyone doubting their strength solo).
Knights feature in 4 lists of the top ten.
Ynarri feature in 3 lists of the top ten.
Then you have a Tau list, an SM list and a demon list.
The top 50 (3 joint 48 placings) breakdown is as follows; 22 x Imperium lists, 11 x Aeldari lists, 8 x Chaos Lists, 3 x Tau lists, 3 x Nid/GSC lists, 2 x Orks lists and (wait for it) 1 x NECRON LIST (at position 20)!!!
Almost all of the imperium lists feature AM and IK. Almost all of the Aeldari lists feature Dark Eldar and many take flyers.
I hope GW learn some lessons from this event. The state of the meta is basically as it was last year. They need to look at the main offenders in terms of which units are too efficient for their points. When we keep seeing the same units taken again and again and again in the top lists it should indicate that there are balance issues. That's where we are.
CA helped some of the weaker factions - Nids and Necrons primarily, Tau have always been flirting with the top tables in my opinion. It didn't do enough however to bring those factions in line with those dominating. It didn't do nearly enough to make the most points efficient units balanced against those who received buffs. You can add all the sprinkles to poop you like, it'll still be poop. Why would I eat poop when I can have a Michelin star meal (Castellan + AM, Ynarri Airwing) instead?
And finally, look at those poor Orks. Now can people admit they aren't top tier?
I can't say I'm shocked that Orks aren't winning this event but I do think the meta is a bit better off than last years LVO. Weren't there like 7 space elf lists in the top 10 last year?
Pure space marines is surprising but it does include Gulliman, a model I've gotten in several arguemtns with people for saying he's still easily worth his point cost. Most of the rest of the 'dex is lacking but he certainly is not.
The way I see the above lists is just fix guardsmen points by upping them to 5 and rework the Ynnari implementation (will they even get a codex or is it more likely a WD at this point?). If you do that, then we're great off I think. It's still a decent spread of armies. Soup continues to dominate but GW seem unwilling to tackle that. If they give soup the GSC treatment (halving the CPs) then they're at least giving you the illusion of trying.
No they didn't. I guess that's why LVO 2018 was "totally" dominated by Ynnari. Then Castellans came along and we got a split of imperium soup and space elf soup. CA has at least added some granularity to the imperium soup elements. With the GSC codex now out I think tyranid soup will become a thing as well.
My point is that we do actually get a decent mix of different armies, it's just the persisting problem of soup allowing the inclusion of those specific way-too-good-for-their-points units in an all too easy way.
I will say that this years LVO has had some interesting armies making it pretty far so the balance isn't as completely lopsided as some will make you believe. It's just that highest tier play that becomes dang near unreachable if you aren't using soup lists.
Spoletta wrote: Mono SM list with 5 tanks still undefeated.
Imp soup without IG or knights, but with 10 termi(!!) still undefeated!
Really? That's great! I'd love to get the details on that.
Presumably their using thr beta bolters rule.
No betta bolters rule is not used. In the moment tournament start using it SM will become scary.
'scary' is a big word. They are still marine models with bolters. Outside of Deathwatch the bolter rule is nice but not powerful enough to make SM able to content with the top armies.
Spoletta wrote: Mono SM list with 5 tanks still undefeated. Imp soup without IG or knights, but with 10 termi(!!) still undefeated!
Really? That's great! I'd love to get the details on that.
Presumably their using thr beta bolters rule.
No betta bolters rule is not used. In the moment tournament start using it SM will become scary.
'scary' is a big word. They are still marine models with bolters. Outside of Deathwatch the bolter rule is nice but not powerful enough to make SM able to content with the top armies.
If a mono space marine list could end up in the top 10 surrounded by soup guard and eldar, I think that counts as contend with top armies
Spoletta wrote: Mono SM list with 5 tanks still undefeated.
Imp soup without IG or knights, but with 10 termi(!!) still undefeated!
Really? That's great! I'd love to get the details on that.
Presumably their using thr beta bolters rule.
No betta bolters rule is not used. In the moment tournament start using it SM will become scary.
'scary' is a big word. They are still marine models with bolters. Outside of Deathwatch the bolter rule is nice but not powerful enough to make SM able to content with the top armies.
Based on the results of this very tournament it would seem that SM already compete with the top armies without a bolter rule crutch....
An Actual Englishman wrote: Also would you look at that, a pure Space Marine army in the top 10 without bolter rules active. I guess they aren't as bad as the hundreds of pages of posts on here would have you believe.
Ever has it been thus for the Smurfs. Every Edition the Smurfs will have a build or two that's boring but practical, however most Space Marines players seem to want to run cool characterful stuff instead. The latter fails to impress, so they come to Dakka and make a thread about how Smurfs suck and how the Codex should change to accomodate the units they want to play.
No Orks in the top ten, not a surprise to me but I know it will be to some of you. Almost like they don't have the tools to compete at the top tables, or something given they enjoy some of the best pilots the game has to offer.
Again, no change here. Orks have always been the noobhammer that'll wreck you the first time you play against them, then never beat you again. The last time they were actually competetive was 4th Edition, IIRC.
And finally, look at those poor Orks. Now can people admit they aren't top tier?
History teaches us that the answer is "no". People have been insisting loudly that Orks are a super competetive God-Tier army since 5th Edition without any evidence to support that belief. They won't stop now.
All that said, there's a much wider spread of factions at the top end of the rankings than you used to get. Sure, Ynnari, Guard and Castellans are clearly dominating, but I don't recall a GT top ten having five different factions in it for quite a while. Progress?
Orks have 2 lists in the top 50, so they are definitely a top level faction.
Regarding the previous LVO, i would like to point out that pre nerf imps soups would eat the current Castellan soups for breakfast. Try defending it against pre fly nerf captains with unlimited CPs.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Also would you look at that, a pure Space Marine army in the top 10 without bolter rules active. I guess they aren't as bad as the hundreds of pages of posts on here would have you believe.
Ever has it been thus for the Smurfs. Every Edition the Smurfs will have a build or two that's boring but practical, however most Space Marines players seem to want to run cool characterful stuff instead. The latter fails to impress, so they come to Dakka and make a thread about how Smurfs suck and how the Codex should change to accomodate the units they want to play.
No Orks in the top ten, not a surprise to me but I know it will be to some of you. Almost like they don't have the tools to compete at the top tables, or something given they enjoy some of the best pilots the game has to offer.
Again, no change here. Orks have always been the noobhammer that'll wreck you the first time you play against them, then never beat you again. The last time they were actually competetive was 4th Edition, IIRC.
And finally, look at those poor Orks. Now can people admit they aren't top tier?
History teaches us that the answer is "no". People have been insisting loudly that Orks are a super competetive God-Tier army since 5th Edition without any evidence to support that belief. They won't stop now.
All that said, there's a much wider spread of factions at the top end of the rankings than you used to get. Sure, Ynnari, Guard and Castellans are clearly dominating, but I don't recall a GT top ten having five different factions in it for quite a while. Progress?
Well orc player almost got in top 8, but orc seem to struggle against vs IK.
Daedalus81 wrote: The GK hero dropped to the 200s with a narrow loss to IG & Smash Captains - no knights.
Where's our Necron legend gone?! :(
58th, which is pretty good for 700ish people.
4th game was narrow loss 27 to 22 to Ynnari. He won his 5th game against Indomitus Crusade.
The Crusade as in the fluffy spend 3 cp on a single unit to make them have an extra attack? Or a RG Castle?
The former CP laden version.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Orks have 2 lists in the top 50, so they are definitely a top level faction.
Regarding the previous LVO, i would like to point out that pre nerf imps soups would eat the current Castellan soups for breakfast. Try defending it against pre fly nerf captains with unlimited CPs.
Orks were major contenders.
Pampreen lost to Weiss' Triple Knight / 2 Basilisk / Hydra by 11.
Nanavanti lost to Harrinson's Ynnari by 1
Round 1 he annihilated a Ynnari soup list 39-8.
Round 2 he crushed another Ynnari soup, 36-11.
Round 3 he had a close victory against Custodes soup (ft 16x jetbikes) 28-27.
Round 4 he lost to double spear Ynnari 22-27.
Round 5 he crushed a Black Templare brigade w/ soup 33-14.
Round 6 he took down Knight Soup, Castellan + 2x Gallant w/ guard brigade. 33-17.
Pampreen lost to Weiss' Triple Knight / 2 Basilisk / Hydra by 11.
It was a damned Emperor's Wrath wasn't it? I've been thinking that we're going to start seeing Hydras make a comeback because of that--not because it makes them actually good, but because that Stratagem just lets them lock down units.
Again, no change here. Orks have always been the noobhammer that'll wreck you the first time you play against them, then never beat you again. The last time they were actually competetive was 4th Edition, IIRC.
Nick and Steve have been running Orks at events since the codex release and they've done considerably well.
You people can't sit here with a straight face and say that an army going 5 and 1 by two people is not competitive at the biggest Warhammer event.
Nick absolutely pounded the Index GSC making rounds in the top 10 (39 to 17).
Lost to *Ynnari* piloted by a skilled player by 1 point (24 to 25).
Pounded an Admech list with Castellan (36 to 13).
Edged out another Ynnari by 2 (25 to 23).
Beat a similar Ork like (36 to 16).
And totally crushed a DG list (42 to 12).
Steve lost to Ynnari by 5, beat triple knight and basilisk by 11, scored 18 and 20 more than other Ork lists, 12 against another Ynnari, and beat out a generic IG list by 18.
You guys are all over Ynnari being in the top, but there is copious evidence of Orks handling them just fine as well as knights. It's a dice game. Sometimes you aren't going to have things go your way.
Pampreen lost to Weiss' Triple Knight / 2 Basilisk / Hydra by 11.
It was a damned Emperor's Wrath wasn't it? I've been thinking that we're going to start seeing Hydras make a comeback because of that--not because it makes them actually good, but because that Stratagem just lets them lock down units.
Doesn't call it out, but I got the round wrong - Steve actually beat that knight list by 11 and then lost round 6 to Ynnari by 5.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
admironheart wrote: Well a couple guys from my area are showing nicely.I think they each have lost only once out of 6 rounds.
So this time last year I read so many articles on the mess that Eldar made of LVO and how the sky was falling. It only took a Big FAQ, some dexes and the Eldar are hated but not the sky falling any more.
This year I do not see anything close to that. I guess the Knight Lists and the loyal 32 are about the only thing even close to that....but it is pale compared to the hate last year.
Any other impressions?
Ynnari just need a kick in the teeth to make them less of a pain in the ass.
The biggest thing people seem to be ignoring is the Chaos Daemons list at #9 with 650 points for summoning.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
summoning always was allowed on turn one?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ever has it been thus for the Smurfs. Every Edition the Smurfs will have a build or two that's boring but practical, however most Space Marines players seem to want to run cool characterful stuff instead. The latter fails to impress, so they come to Dakka and make a thread about how Smurfs suck and how the Codex should change to accomodate the units they want to play.
the smurfs, just like black legion, use their amazing charachters to keep competing. That said unlikeBlack legion the smurf trait is usefull.
that does however not really say much about the rest of the SM codex imo.
Actually Not Online!, the smurf list that did so good didn’t even have a pure detachment to benefit from the so usefull trait they get, becuase they included black templar scouts
Straight_Memer wrote: Actually Not Online!, the smurf list that did so good didn’t even have a pure detachment to benefit from the so usefull trait they get, becuase they included black templar scouts
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
There's never been a rule preventing summoning turn 1 (in 8e at least).
Tactical Reserves rule only applies to units that were setup somewhere other than the battlefield. Summoned units have never previously been setup before. This is all RAW.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
There's never been a rule preventing summoning turn 1 (in 8e at least).
Tactical Reserves rule only applies to units that were setup somewhere other than the battlefield. Summoned units have never previously been setup before. This is all RAW.
Summoning is reinforcement and the rule is about reinforcement, so its included. There was no need for them to put it in the rules if it was allowed.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
There's never been a rule preventing summoning turn 1 (in 8e at least).
Tactical Reserves rule only applies to units that were setup somewhere other than the battlefield. Summoned units have never previously been setup before. This is all RAW.
Summoning is reinforcement and the rule is about reinforcement, so its included. There was no need for them to put it in the rules if it was allowed.
Wrong the rule doesn't affect reinforcements, it specifically affects "units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game".
The tactical reserve rules (introduced in FAQ 2) state:
"Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
Summoned units are not placed anywhere in order to arrive on the battle mid-game. They are just summoned. You don't even know what you are summoning until you summon it. The unit doesn't exist until you summon it. If the unit doesn't exist how can it be placed anywhere before hand to arrive as reinforcements?
Again, no change here. Orks have always been the noobhammer that'll wreck you the first time you play against them, then never beat you again. The last time they were actually competetive was 4th Edition, IIRC.
Nick and Steve have been running Orks at events since the codex release and they've done considerably well.
You people can't sit here with a straight face and say that an army going 5 and 1 by two people is not competitive at the biggest Warhammer event.
Yes and its not hard to see why.
We have 2 players in the top 50. That's 4%. Orks make up over 10% of the total players at the event
We have 5 players in the top 100, all apart from the aforementioned 2 are sub 80th place. That's 5% of the top 100. Again, we make up a greater proportion of the player base.
Our win rate is 45% and has 'rocketed' up to 49% if we include only results post codex release.
Orks are not a top tier army as things stand and we're about to get worse relatively with the additions of the beta bolter rule, GSC codex and as we see proper fall out from the changes of CA. We are too reliant on stratagems in a meta that easily counters them, we have poor anti armour and our units are not efficient compared to others. Of course our biggest issue is our inability to soup.
You can't argue with evidence. Steve Pampreen and Nick Nanavati won a few events before the CA changes. They have won one or two events after but people haven't been playing in those as seriously as they do the LVO.
Orks need a buff or we'll be joining GK in their corner of the meta. There are more of almost every faction in the top 100 unless we get super granular and consider specific chapters and things. More Imperium lists, more Chaos lists, more Aeldari lists, more Tau lists and more Nid lists. The only faction who share our low numbers in the top 100 are Necrons. They aren't considered competitive AFAIK?
Straight_Memer wrote: Actually Not Online!, the smurf list that did so good didn’t even have a pure detachment to benefit from the so usefull trait they get, becuase they included black templar scouts
HUH, now that is surprising.
I'm guessing the templars 4+ deny stratagem was the pull here.
That 7 flyer list is pretty sweet. Never thought something like that could do so well at a major event. Also Sean Nayden's Yncarne list is awesome. I hope we get to see at least one of those lists play on stream today.
Neither list uses reapers and Sean's list only has 8 spears + Eldrad alongside a bunch of non-meta stuff like Yncarne, Maugan Ra, a solitaire, and some death jesters.
slave.entity wrote: That 7 flyer list is pretty sweet. Never thought something like that could do so well at a major event. Also Sean Nayden's Yncarne list is awesome. I hope we get to see at least one of those lists play on stream today.
Neither list uses reapers and Sean's list only has 8 spears + Eldrad alongside a bunch of non-meta stuff like Yncarne, Maugan Ra, a solitaire, and some death jesters.
Used to see lists like that with Dark Talons before rule of 3 and their points increases. But yeah, been a while!
dan2026 wrote: I'm super impressed a Daemons list made it to the top 8.
I know it has some TS allied in but still cool.
Does anyone know what he is exactly using?
Ahriman/DPSC, 30 plaguebearers, 4 nurglings, bilepiper/scrivener, gnarlmaw, 650 summoning points and.... an INFERNAL ENRAPTURESS WARLORD? So good.
Now this is cool arse 40k list. A little bit of everything and some bold choices.
I'd love to know this guys strategy. What is he summoning? Why the Gnarlmaw? Why the Enrapturess Warlord?
I always feel that although they have some cool tricks and some very cool models, Daemons are always kinda an underdog army.
So its refreshing to see them do so well.
New bolter rule would do jack all for that SM list. It's all repulsors, predators and gman. I'm glad it's doing well, the other SM list with the vigilus IG detachment did really well too (storm shield biker death ball with GMAN) but I think the SM not running a knight were around cron/ork levels in the top 100 (we'll see once the stats come out).
Like I said other places. Nerf knights, ynarri, doom, dissie cannons, grotesques, guardsmen, maybe ahriman and the princes and the GSC (codex is just too good, at least that stupid vect on steroids, mental op power, hand flamers and the best gunman in the west) while dropping a few more SM primarchs (DA, SW, other vanilla chapters), boost crons a bit and I think we'll have a pretty balanced meta until 9th comes along and breaks it all.
If they want to really get things right the nonperforming units in all the dexes really need a look (primaris, ork vehicles, lots of CWE stuff, crons, all codexes have far too many stinkers) but I think that is beyond GWs capabilities.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
There's never been a rule preventing summoning turn 1 (in 8e at least).
Tactical Reserves rule only applies to units that were setup somewhere other than the battlefield. Summoned units have never previously been setup before. This is all RAW.
Summoning is reinforcement and the rule is about reinforcement, so its included. There was no need for them to put it in the rules if it was allowed.
Wrong the rule doesn't affect reinforcements, it specifically affects "units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game".
The tactical reserve rules (introduced in FAQ 2) state:
"Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
Summoned units are not placed anywhere in order to arrive on the battle mid-game. They are just summoned. You don't even know what you are summoning until you summon it. The unit doesn't exist until you summon it. If the unit doesn't exist how can it be placed anywhere before hand to arrive as reinforcements?
You are playing with words, from the demonic ritual:
This unit is treated as reinforcements for your army
Whatever it exist or don`t exist, its not placed during deployment and is reinforcement according to the daemonic ritual.
Just the LVO guys buffed it so it can be useful and skip most of the tactical reserve rule, but to avoid argument they implicitly typed that forewarned and the SM stratagem work on summoning, so players don`t argue that summoning is not reinforcement.
No one is arguing that's it's not reinforcements! It's just irrelevant. You are confusing Tactical Reserves with Reinforcements. They are not the same thing.
Only units that are setup somewhere other than the battlefield are subject to the rule preventing them arriving on turn 1. Therefore it does not apply to summoning, because they have never been setup.
It's simple RAW, nothing to do with a ruling this tournament made.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
There's never been a rule preventing summoning turn 1 (in 8e at least).
Tactical Reserves rule only applies to units that were setup somewhere other than the battlefield. Summoned units have never previously been setup before. This is all RAW.
Summoning is reinforcement and the rule is about reinforcement, so its included. There was no need for them to put it in the rules if it was allowed.
Wrong the rule doesn't affect reinforcements, it specifically affects "units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game".
The tactical reserve rules (introduced in FAQ 2) state:
"Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
Summoned units are not placed anywhere in order to arrive on the battle mid-game. They are just summoned. You don't even know what you are summoning until you summon it. The unit doesn't exist until you summon it. If the unit doesn't exist how can it be placed anywhere before hand to arrive as reinforcements?
You are playing with words, from the demonic ritual:
This unit is treated as reinforcements for your army
Whatever it exist or don`t exist, its not placed during deployment and is reinforcement according to the daemonic ritual.
Just the LVO guys buffed it so it can be useful and skip most of the tactical reserve rule, but to avoid argument they implicitly typed that forewarned and the SM stratagem work on summoning, so players don`t argue that summoning is not reinforcement.
I never said daemons were not reinforcements, they are.
But they are not affected by the tactical reserve rules for the similar reasons that they are not affected by the rules that 50% of your units/army must start on the table and are not destroyed if they come on turn 4-7.
If you re-read the rules for for tactical reserves it clearly states it affects "units that are not placed on the battlefield in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements". This specifically refers to units starting in: ambush, teleportarium, manta strike. Summoning doesn't work like that, units are not placed anywhere you merely allocate points that can be used to summon a variety of different units mid game based on your summoning roll. It says nothing about affecting reinforcements in general.
I don't see what you are basing your argument on. The English is clear.
bananathug wrote: New bolter rule would do jack all for that SM list. It's all repulsors, predators and gman.
Don't agree - each repulsor picks up 6 extra bolter shots with the beta rules, and each pred would pick up 2 if it's running SBs. That's 16 extra shots out to 24", plus another 15 from the scouts. With Bobby rerolls, that's some significant dakka added.
Spoletta wrote: The man with the summoning list is the true winner of the event. That is without a doubt the hardest list to play. Full respect for him.
He got help from the organizers, since they allowed summoning on turn 1.
There's never been a rule preventing summoning turn 1 (in 8e at least).
Tactical Reserves rule only applies to units that were setup somewhere other than the battlefield. Summoned units have never previously been setup before. This is all RAW.
Summoning is reinforcement and the rule is about reinforcement, so its included. There was no need for them to put it in the rules if it was allowed.
Wrong the rule doesn't affect reinforcements, it specifically affects "units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game".
The tactical reserve rules (introduced in FAQ 2) state:
"Furthermore, in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
Summoned units are not placed anywhere in order to arrive on the battle mid-game. They are just summoned. You don't even know what you are summoning until you summon it. The unit doesn't exist until you summon it. If the unit doesn't exist how can it be placed anywhere before hand to arrive as reinforcements?
You are playing with words, from the demonic ritual:
This unit is treated as reinforcements for your army
Whatever it exist or don`t exist, its not placed during deployment and is reinforcement according to the daemonic ritual.
Just the LVO guys buffed it so it can be useful and skip most of the tactical reserve rule, but to avoid argument they implicitly typed that forewarned and the SM stratagem work on summoning, so players don`t argue that summoning is not reinforcement.
I never said daemons were not reinforcements, they are.
But they are not affected by the tactical reserve rules for the similar reasons that they are not affected by the rules that 50% of your units/army must start on the table and are not destroyed if they come on turn 4-7.
If you re-read the rules for for tactical reserves it clearly states it affects "units that are not placed on the battlefield in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements". This specifically refers to units starting in: ambush, teleportarium, manta strike. Summoning doesn't work like that, units are not placed anywhere you merely allocate points that can be used to summon a variety of different units mid game based on your summoning roll. It says nothing about affecting reinforcements in general.
I don't see what you are basing your argument on. The English is clear.
You are cutting parts of the rule:
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in ambush,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements.
RESERVES
Reserves are forces which are not directly present at the start of an engagement but are available as reinforcements during battle.
So no daemon reinforcement are no excluded from the rule, but they ignore the points and half army requirement.
I`m sure GW will fix that soon, since LVO guys have influence in GW.
2 list IG + IK(both have Castellan)
1 Admech + Castellan
1 list Ynnari with 7 flyer.
The IG/IK list are playing eachother, on the other table are playing the Ynnari vs the Admech.
It`s expected that the Ynnari will win since the Admech list is melee focused.
I would like to see them at least try something to break up the absolute superiority of soup. Either CP locked to detachment that made it or only Warlords detachment can use strats.
Eldarain wrote: I would like to see them at least try something to break up the absolute superiority of soup. Either CP locked to detachment that made it or only Warlords detachment can use strats.
You still get to minmax across tons of books.
Too much money to be made by not fixing it. GW won't hurt their bottom line. That's what they care about. One and only. The problem has existed for several editions already. GW knows the effect. It's working as planned.
It'll be interesting to see the results of this event once everything has settled. It's the first major test of Games Workshop's changes in Chapter Approved. The meta has been stale for so long that it'll be interesting to see which Factions and what units will end up being the top dogs.
Darsath wrote: It'll be interesting to see the results of this event once everything has settled. It's the first major test of Games Workshop's changes in Chapter Approved. The meta has been stale for so long that it'll be interesting to see which Factions and what units will end up being the top dogs.
What are top factions? Imperium and aeldar soups. Soup is always going to be top dog. Imperium has largest soup=it will be at top always and eldars have bloody good soup potential plus generally ignore tons of rules anyway=again top potential. There's not been many times eldars are NOT at top tables in some form of other.
Darsath wrote: It'll be interesting to see the results of this event once everything has settled. It's the first major test of Games Workshop's changes in Chapter Approved. The meta has been stale for so long that it'll be interesting to see which Factions and what units will end up being the top dogs.
What are top factions? Imperium and aeldar soups. Soup is always going to be top dog. Imperium has largest soup=it will be at top always and eldars have bloody good soup potential plus generally ignore tons of rules anyway=again top potential. There's not been many times eldars are NOT at top tables in some form of other.
Well, we might see Chaos Soup right?
I'm more looking to see what the spoiler lists are that break into the top 8.
dan2026 wrote: Does anyone have the full list of what the Daemon/TS player used? Including his summoning?
Guess we won't find out what he was summoning since he didn't make it to the finals. Infernal enrapturess warlord is pretty awesome though!
Here's the list:
https://i.imgur.com/kHty85s.png
Doesn't sound like the problem is soup. The problem is the Castilian with support.
Sure there are no single faction lists. There is a difference between soup and support. Soup is a sloppy term, it doesn't tell me anything but the speaker is butt hurt.
2 list IG + IK(both have Castellan)
1 Admech + Castellan
1 list Ynnari with 7 flyer.
That tells me a lot. I might like to know more, like what the supporting units are (someone said admech was melee heavy)
You might read those lists and say soup is the problem. More choice is always going to be better than less choice. A player that can bring units from 2 dexs (or 3 or 3 of 12) will have a huge potential to do really cool stuff and find more combinations and likely better combos than the army that only comes out of 1 dex.
Thats fine. Thats cool I can build my dudes more ways. Gdub can sell from more lines. The problem comes in when with all that potential you see the same units in every list. Knights with infantry and arty support and a couple Smashfuckers of one flavor or another. Maybe swap out the Smashfuckers. Archon with living muse and 3 tripple dissy ravengers with jet bike farseers with doom plus some camping alitoc Scouts.
But in this tournament there was a huge variety of lists with very respectable showings. Until the top tables. 3 big knights and 1 flyer spam.
You can cry about soup if you want. It tells me the system still doesn't handle the knights well. And it might not handle fliers well either, sample is too small to be sure.
dan2026 wrote: Does anyone have the full list of what the Daemon/TS player used? Including his summoning?
Guess we won't find out what he was summoning since he didn't make it to the finals. Infernal enrapturess warlord is pretty awesome though!
Here's the list:
https://i.imgur.com/kHty85s.png
Thanks.
Do we know why he had the Enrapturess as Warlord?
A strange choice. I'm not sure what advantage it gives.
Eldarain wrote: I would like to see them at least try something to break up the absolute superiority of soup. Either CP locked to detachment that made it or only Warlords detachment can use strats.
You still get to minmax across tons of books.
Too much money to be made by not fixing it. GW won't hurt their bottom line. That's what they care about. One and only. The problem has existed for several editions already. GW knows the effect. It's working as planned.
The Castellan and command point battery has been an issue for several editions? That's wrong.
What a joke of a comment. About a tournament THAT DOESN'T EVEN USE GW RULES.
dan2026 wrote: Does anyone have the full list of what the Daemon/TS player used? Including his summoning?
Guess we won't find out what he was summoning since he didn't make it to the finals. Infernal enrapturess warlord is pretty awesome though!
Here's the list:
https://i.imgur.com/kHty85s.png
Thanks.
Do we know why he had the Enrapturess as Warlord?
A strange choice. I'm not sure what advantage it gives.
dan2026 wrote: Does anyone have the full list of what the Daemon/TS player used? Including his summoning?
Guess we won't find out what he was summoning since he didn't make it to the finals. Infernal enrapturess warlord is pretty awesome though!
Here's the list:
https://i.imgur.com/kHty85s.png
Thanks.
Do we know why he had the Enrapturess as Warlord?
A strange choice. I'm not sure what advantage it gives.
Enrapturess gives bonuses to summoning.
It also occupies a privileged position on the field easily, and can carry the Gem of Smashcap Suicide, making it effectively immune to Old School.
Brandon was my only loss but I can say that even not having met him before he was a great person and opponent at the table. Regardless of you think of his list always nice to see someone who shows great character as a player go the distance.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
It seem that you didn't watch the battle, the IG guy should have lost, but he did just enough the first 3 rounds mostly getting obj and kept his IG alive to get by. the IK died on top of turn 3, so it did ok, nothing amazing, in fact on its turn 2 shooting it was cursed by the dice gods.
Eldarain wrote: I would like to see them at least try something to break up the absolute superiority of soup. Either CP locked to detachment that made it or only Warlords detachment can use strats.
You still get to minmax across tons of books.
Too much money to be made by not fixing it. GW won't hurt their bottom line. That's what they care about. One and only. The problem has existed for several editions already. GW knows the effect. It's working as planned.
The Castellan and command point battery has been an issue for several editions? That's wrong.
What a joke of a comment. About a tournament THAT DOESN'T EVEN USE GW RULES.
This place has lost all sense.
Allies have been problem for editions. The problem isn't single units. It's soup. See any non soup's dominating? NO! Because soup is by the very nature more powerful than non-soup. Soup is dominating and will dominate forever.
You think castellan is problem. It is not. Pure knights aren't dominating. SOUP IS DOMINATING! Soup is problem. And soup has existed before 8th ed as well. Allies have existed first time in 2nd ed. Imagine that. OVER TWO DECADES AGO! It was problem then. It is problem now. It will always be problem as long as it's allowed. Anybody saying otherwise is pure kidding themselves or doesn't understand game design.
Only way different factions can work together is if they are put inside one codex factored in, with own restrictions and it's own point costs so same unit in book X costs even differently to same unit in book Y because in book X(which would be current soup) it is more powerful than in book Y. So in your stupid example the castellan in soup would cost more than castellan in mono list.
Soup is the problem. That has existed literally decades ago.
Don't fixate on single face of issue. It doesn't matter what individual part of soup is the hot sauce NOW. If it's not castellan and CP battery it's something else. You can remove those and guess what? Soup would STILL be better than non-soup. As long as soup is possible soup trumps non soup. Simple as that. You will just get different broken soup. The soup wasn't balanced in 2nd edition either despite no CP's and no castellan. It was simply different broken cheese. Soup always will allow breaking game by the very nature of allies.
Eldarain wrote: I would like to see them at least try something to break up the absolute superiority of soup. Either CP locked to detachment that made it or only Warlords detachment can use strats.
You still get to minmax across tons of books.
Too much money to be made by not fixing it. GW won't hurt their bottom line. That's what they care about. One and only. The problem has existed for several editions already. GW knows the effect. It's working as planned.
The Castellan and command point battery has been an issue for several editions? That's wrong.
What a joke of a comment. About a tournament THAT DOESN'T EVEN USE GW RULES.
This place has lost all sense.
Allies have been problem for editions. The problem isn't single units. It's soup. See any non soup's dominating? NO! Because soup is by the very nature more powerful than non-soup. Soup is dominating and will dominate forever.
You think castellan is problem. It is not. Pure knights aren't dominating. SOUP IS DOMINATING! Soup is problem. And soup has existed before 8th ed as well. Allies have existed first time in 2nd ed. Imagine that. OVER TWO DECADES AGO! It was problem then. It is problem now. It will always be problem as long as it's allowed. Anybody saying otherwise is pure kidding themselves or doesn't understand game design.
Only way different factions can work together is if they are put inside one codex factored in, with own restrictions and it's own point costs so same unit in book X costs even differently to same unit in book Y because in book X(which would be current soup) it is more powerful than in book Y. So in your stupid example the castellan in soup would cost more than castellan in mono list.
Soup is the problem. That has existed literally decades ago.
Don't fixate on single face of issue. It doesn't matter what individual part of soup is the hot sauce NOW. If it's not castellan and CP battery it's something else. You can remove those and guess what? Soup would STILL be better than non-soup. As long as soup is possible soup trumps non soup. Simple as that. You will just get different broken soup. The soup wasn't balanced in 2nd edition either despite no CP's and no castellan. It was simply different broken cheese. Soup always will allow breaking game by the very nature of allies.
And once again we have to reiterate that both Infantry and Castellans are problem units mathematically anyway. So MAYBE, just MAYBE, the units are the issue rather than a mechanic that actually hasn't caused any problems as a whole?
So why then aeldar soup is king? And why imperium soup's without castellan are doing better than non-soup's? Soup isn't new to 8th ed and has always caused problems starting from 2nd ed. Just because you can't see problems besides one unit doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just mean you need to look out at the wider world than just castellan and keep repeating "castellan is bad, castellan is bad, castellan is bad". Make castellan 2000 pts and you will just have another soup dominate.
The sheer FACT that you can cherry pick units at will removing weak points makes soup more powerful by default. Having faction with good h2h but poor shooting would be balancable without soup but then soup gives you both best h2h and best shooting for same cost.
There's never been any iteration of soup that isn't full of problems. No surprise since it's impossible.
If you want balanced allies you need to put in specific units inside faction. Rather than IG book and knight book with own costs etc and ability to mix and match you need to have 1 books with same units but with specific restrictions and costs for both according to how they work together. That's the only way allies can be made to work. Having them on separate lists that works on their own and then can be mixed at will is always going to be broken.
tneva82 wrote: So why then aeldar soup is king? And why imperium soup's without castellan are doing better than non-soup's? Soup isn't new to 8th ed and has always caused problems starting from 2nd ed. Just because you can't see problems besides one unit doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The sheer FACT that you can cherry pick units at will removing weak points makes soup more powerful by default. Having faction with good h2h but poor shooting would be balancable without soup but then soup gives you both best h2h and best shooting for same cost.
There's never been any iteration of soup that isn't full of problems. No surprise since it's impossible.
If you want balanced allies you need to put in specific units inside faction. Rather than IG book and knight book with own costs etc and ability to mix and match you need to have 1 books with same units but with specific restrictions and costs for both according to how they work together. That's the only way allies can be made to work. Having them on separate lists that works on their own and then can be mixed at will is always going to be broken.
I already said this in a different thread, but I'll repeat it for you.
Why would I take just the broken units in my codex if I can take other broken ones too? Why would I limit myself if the goal is to win?
If you fix the broken units, you don't get this issue. Infantry are already mathematically too good, regardless of what Guard apologists say. So why is that an issue with allies? It isn't. Same thing with Castellans and Cawls Wrath being stupid.
Dashofpepper wrote:Was the Admech player in the top Hulksmash?
Justin's Ad Mech took 4th
Pain4Pleasure wrote:It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
Say what you will about the Castellan list, but Alex was the last person I and most of the people there wanted to win. Better to have a janky list win run by a good player than to have a janky player win.
tneva82 wrote: So why then aeldar soup is king? And why imperium soup's without castellan are doing better than non-soup's? Soup isn't new to 8th ed and has always caused problems starting from 2nd ed. Just because you can't see problems besides one unit doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The sheer FACT that you can cherry pick units at will removing weak points makes soup more powerful by default. Having faction with good h2h but poor shooting would be balancable without soup but then soup gives you both best h2h and best shooting for same cost.
There's never been any iteration of soup that isn't full of problems. No surprise since it's impossible.
If you want balanced allies you need to put in specific units inside faction. Rather than IG book and knight book with own costs etc and ability to mix and match you need to have 1 books with same units but with specific restrictions and costs for both according to how they work together. That's the only way allies can be made to work. Having them on separate lists that works on their own and then can be mixed at will is always going to be broken.
I already said this in a different thread, but I'll repeat it for you.
Why would I take just the broken units in my codex if I can take other broken ones too? Why would I limit myself if the goal is to win?
If you fix the broken units, you don't get this issue. Infantry are already mathematically too good, regardless of what Guard apologists say. So why is that an issue with allies? It isn't. Same thing with Castellans and Cawls Wrath being stupid.
I think this is really flawed reasoning.
40k is inherently unbalancable. There will always be stronger units, and having access to those across multiple armies without restriction or penalty will always be a problem.
I'm not saying that Infantry Squads or Castellans don't need work. I'd increase points of the former and limit access to Invuln stacking for the latter, at the very least.
I'm saying that even if you did that, Imperium soup would still be preferable in some form to any Imperium mono list.
Dashofpepper wrote:Was the Admech player in the top Hulksmash?
Justin's Ad Mech took 4th
Pain4Pleasure wrote:It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
Say what you will about the Castellan list, but Alex was the last person I and most of the people there wanted to win. Better to have a janky list win run by a good player than to have a janky player win.
Personally, the way Justin acted in his game 6 on stream was pretty unacceptable. The game was his regardless, but the way he conducted himself and went about the situation was disappointing - especially for a stream game.
Unfortunately, the LGT is going to hang over Alex for a very very long time. But, refer to it as much as you want, people also need to accept that he won 8 out of 9 games whilst under intense scrutiny and observation. Whether or not he, and several other top players should have been there or not, is a question for FLG.
From what I gather, Alex played very clean games, and when watching the facebook stream of his game vs Nick Nanavati, I was more concerned about some of the “janky” moves Nick was making, as opposed to Alex. However, due to the LGT, the focus is always on Alex (as expected).
There was, and always will be, some form of drama on the top tables at the LVO. This year didn’t disappoint either.
It was a pretty good event overall from what I saw, it’s just a shame Mike Porter couldn’t take the ITC title!
Dashofpepper wrote:Was the Admech player in the top Hulksmash?
Justin's Ad Mech took 4th
Pain4Pleasure wrote:It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
Say what you will about the Castellan list, but Alex was the last person I and most of the people there wanted to win. Better to have a janky list win run by a good player than to have a janky player win.
Personally, the way Justin acted in his game 6 on stream was pretty unacceptable. The game was his regardless, but the way he conducted himself and went about the situation was disappointing - especially for a stream game.
Unfortunately, the LGT is going to hang over Alex for a very very long time. But, refer to it as much as you want, people also need to accept that he won 8 out of 9 games whilst under intense scrutiny and observation. Whether or not he, and several other top players should have been there or not, is a question for FLG.
From what I gather, Alex played very clean games, and when watching the facebook stream of his game vs Nick Nanavati, I was more concerned about some of the “janky” moves Nick was making, as opposed to Alex. However, due to the LGT, the focus is always on Alex (as expected).
There was, and always will be, some form of drama on the top tables at the LVO. This year didn’t disappoint either.
It was a pretty good event overall from what I saw, it’s just a shame Mike Porter couldn’t take the ITC title!
These people will never forgive Alex. Castellan are a bigger problem than any eldar soup. Only thing to do now is buff haywire, buff most eldar units, nerf Castellan, nerf guard, and a few other random nerds thrown the way of imperials and we will be in a decent game state again. /serious
Ynnari is king which - if you have forgotten - is already combining a lot of the Aeldari factions into one faction(which would mean it's not even soup if you changed a few things). The first non-Ynnari listing is in 12th place with Drukhari. First Asuryani in 32nd place, which btw has Drukhari, but isn't placing really high.
If soup were the only problem then we should be seeing Drukhari/Asuryani/harlequin soups place higher more consistently, but the only Aeldari faction that places consistently is Ynnari as if there is a fundamental problem with their ability like being able to act twice with powerful units using psychic powers and such.
Dashofpepper wrote:Was the Admech player in the top Hulksmash?
Justin's Ad Mech took 4th
Pain4Pleasure wrote:It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
Say what you will about the Castellan list, but Alex was the last person I and most of the people there wanted to win. Better to have a janky list win run by a good player than to have a janky player win.
Personally, the way Justin acted in his game 6 on stream was pretty unacceptable. The game was his regardless, but the way he conducted himself and went about the situation was disappointing - especially for a stream game.
Unfortunately, the LGT is going to hang over Alex for a very very long time. But, refer to it as much as you want, people also need to accept that he won 8 out of 9 games whilst under intense scrutiny and observation. Whether or not he, and several other top players should have been there or not, is a question for FLG.
From what I gather, Alex played very clean games, and when watching the facebook stream of his game vs Nick Nanavati, I was more concerned about some of the “janky” moves Nick was making, as opposed to Alex. However, due to the LGT, the focus is always on Alex (as expected).
There was, and always will be, some form of drama on the top tables at the LVO. This year didn’t disappoint either.
It was a pretty good event overall from what I saw, it’s just a shame Mike Porter couldn’t take the ITC title!
Alex has a reputation that is well known among the players and organizers and it was earned by more than just the one very public incident.
As far as Justin's behavior, I know him very well and have played with him many times. I agree that it was out of bounds, but he played the rule as it had been played against him by many players over the course of the tournament as well as in other tournaments. He should have known better at this level of play, but quite frankly, he never expected to actually be in that position and the guy has only been playing for a little over a year and a half. Unfortunately all people will see is the stream and not the other 7 games he played. Is he intense when he plays? Sure, but he also does his best to play an open and honest game.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
It seem that you didn't watch the battle, the IG guy should have lost, but he did just enough the first 3 rounds mostly getting obj and kept his IG alive to get by. the IK died on top of turn 3, so it did ok, nothing amazing, in fact on its turn 2 shooting it was cursed by the dice gods.
"He should have lost". No, his opponent brought a 7 flier list and Brandon focused on removing his enemies ground units to stop him from being able to win the mission.
Doesn't matter how many immortal fliers you have around when you can't win the mission.
And ofcourse people are not just going to forgive Alex. The guy was caught cheating on stream ffs.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
It seem that you didn't watch the battle, the IG guy should have lost, but he did just enough the first 3 rounds mostly getting obj and kept his IG alive to get by. the IK died on top of turn 3, so it did ok, nothing amazing, in fact on its turn 2 shooting it was cursed by the dice gods.
"He should have lost". No, his opponent brought a 7 flier list and Brandon focused on removing his enemies ground units to stop him from being able to win the mission.
Doesn't matter how many immortal fliers you have around when you can't win the mission.
Exactly. I was talking with Brandon's team mate (and 8th round opponent) during the final match and he explained exactly how they had planned to tackle Alex's list, and Brandon executed it and outplayed Alex.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
It seem that you didn't watch the battle, the IG guy should have lost, but he did just enough the first 3 rounds mostly getting obj and kept his IG alive to get by. the IK died on top of turn 3, so it did ok, nothing amazing, in fact on its turn 2 shooting it was cursed by the dice gods.
"He should have lost". No, his opponent brought a 7 flier list and Brandon focused on removing his enemies ground units to stop him from being able to win the mission.
Doesn't matter how many immortal fliers you have around when you can't win the mission.
Exactly. I was talking with Brandon's team mate (and 8th round opponent) during the final match and he explained exactly how they had planned to tackle Alex's list, and Brandon executed it and outplayed Alex.
Ah great, we have imperial lovers in this thread.. look, 31 to 30 isn’t outplayed. It’s called a close game. 20-31 would be outplayed. This was a game of skill on BOTH sides, like it or not. One slip up from either one would of meant defeat, but they both played very well. Some of us are just hoping that this win, along with mass emails to gw for the next month, spells disaster for the Castellan.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
It seem that you didn't watch the battle, the IG guy should have lost, but he did just enough the first 3 rounds mostly getting obj and kept his IG alive to get by. the IK died on top of turn 3, so it did ok, nothing amazing, in fact on its turn 2 shooting it was cursed by the dice gods.
"He should have lost". No, his opponent brought a 7 flier list and Brandon focused on removing his enemies ground units to stop him from being able to win the mission.
Doesn't matter how many immortal fliers you have around when you can't win the mission.
Exactly. I was talking with Brandon's team mate (and 8th round opponent) during the final match and he explained exactly how they had planned to tackle Alex's list, and Brandon executed it and outplayed Alex.
Ah great, we have imperial lovers in this thread.. look, 31 to 3 isn’t outplayed. It’s called a close game. 20-31 would be outplayed. This was a game of skill on BOTH sides, like it or not. One slip up from either one would of meant defeat, but they both played very well. Some of us are just hoping that this win, along with mass emails to gw for the next month, spells disaster for the Castellan.
LOL I'm no fan of the Castellan, and am perfectly happy to see it kicked down a notch or two.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It makes me sad grant beat Alex.. such a close game. I was hoping the Castellan wouldn’t be #1 and would get shut down
It seem that you didn't watch the battle, the IG guy should have lost, but he did just enough the first 3 rounds mostly getting obj and kept his IG alive to get by. the IK died on top of turn 3, so it did ok, nothing amazing, in fact on its turn 2 shooting it was cursed by the dice gods.
"He should have lost". No, his opponent brought a 7 flier list and Brandon focused on removing his enemies ground units to stop him from being able to win the mission.
Doesn't matter how many immortal fliers you have around when you can't win the mission.
Exactly. I was talking with Brandon's team mate (and 8th round opponent) during the final match and he explained exactly how they had planned to tackle Alex's list, and Brandon executed it and outplayed Alex.
Ah great, we have imperial lovers in this thread.. look, 31 to 3 isn’t outplayed. It’s called a close game. 20-31 would be outplayed. This was a game of skill on BOTH sides, like it or not. One slip up from either one would of meant defeat, but they both played very well. Some of us are just hoping that this win, along with mass emails to gw for the next month, spells disaster for the Castellan.
I agree the Castellan is a bit to good and can use some tweaking. But completely neuter it and we go back to another dark age of Ynnari just dominating everything.
Honestly I want to see both soup and the castellan fixed.
I don't want any of the actual base stats or point costs of the castellan changed with the fix - the aspects of it that put it over the top aren't its base armament or cost tbh. It's the access it has to simultaneously the best warlord traits and best relic in the game.
You should not have a relic bolt pistol that gets 2 shots and can target characters compared to upgrading your gun on a superheavy to a ludicrous degree. Just to highlight how ridiculous it is, imagine that there was a relic similar to Cawl's Wrath available for a Shadowsword or a Wraithknight to take, alongisde the regular relics in the IG and Eldar codexes. Would you ever take a slightly stronger power sword, or even one of the good relics like Kurov's Aquila if the alternative was to give your superheavy another D6 shots or flat rather than random damage or something?
Hell yes soup needs to be nerfed. EVERYONE should have some kind of limitation like GSC do where using command points on a different faction's units costs double or something like that. Doom+Drukhari also desperately needs to be addressed, probably with a real simple "you cannot benefit in any way from psychic powers generated by another allied faction, even debuffs" rule. I don't care about "immersion" - if a space wolf priest can summon a snowstorm and it gives all his space wolf buddies cover but magically doesn't obscure nearby allied imperial guardsmen, then a Death Hex'd captain can still have his invuln save against allied demons attacking him.
The game is orders of magnitude easier to balance when allied factions are more heavily silod and can be addressed individually, and it prevents nerfs to things that, without allies, are not a problem: see haywire and disintegrators, knight and blood angel stratagems.
yep, fix Doom, stacking negative to hit modifiers and invulns, castellan points and Ynnari in general and I think the field might look a little bit better.
I am more annoyed that the Admech player who got caught trying to use his House trait on his super heavy aux detatchment didn't get DQed. How many people did you use that on prior to that moment at the event. You can make the argument that he was just making a mistake and to an extent I would agree. But in the end it doesn't matter cheating intentionally or cheating unintentionally is still cheating. This kind of gak happens way to much at big events like this. If GW wants this to be an actual E-sport like they are pushing it towards we need to start hold people accountable for their actions. If the guy was accidentally doing something wrong DQ from even if it was proven that he was intentionally doing it Ban from event. I guarantee if event TOs start holding people accountable these kinds of things will go the way of the dodo.
The Salt Mine wrote: I am more annoyed that the Admech player who got caught trying to use his House trait on his super heavy aux detatchment didn't get DQed. How many people did you use that on prior to that moment at the event. You can make the argument that he was just making a mistake and to an extent I would agree. But in the end it doesn't matter cheating intentionally or cheating unintentionally is still cheating. This kind of gak happens way to much at big events like this. If GW wants this to be an actual E-sport like they are pushing it towards we need to start hold people accountable for their actions. If the guy was accidentally doing something wrong DQ from even if it was proven that he was intentionally doing it Ban from event. I guarantee if event TOs start holding people accountable these kinds of things will go the way of the dodo.
The mistake is inconsequential to the way he handled it imo. My biggest question at the time was “why is he even bothering to advance anyway?” He didn’t need to in order to shoot a riptide and the broadsides, so, it was all just random to begin with.
As for going back to his other games, only those he played against (and himself) know what happened, and most events now have to rely on the mistakes being picked up by the other player and very rarely are able to introduce retrospective punishments on a “maybe this happened”.
The Salt Mine wrote: I am more annoyed that the Admech player who got caught trying to use his House trait on his super heavy aux detatchment didn't get DQed. How many people did you use that on prior to that moment at the event. You can make the argument that he was just making a mistake and to an extent I would agree. But in the end it doesn't matter cheating intentionally or cheating unintentionally is still cheating. This kind of gak happens way to much at big events like this. If GW wants this to be an actual E-sport like they are pushing it towards we need to start hold people accountable for their actions. If the guy was accidentally doing something wrong DQ from even if it was proven that he was intentionally doing it Ban from event. I guarantee if event TOs start holding people accountable these kinds of things will go the way of the dodo.
Happens. Last LVO in Jan 2018, both players in the finals where quickening Shining Spears after deepstrike, even though the BRB Reinforcement rules prevent it and dozens of people in the comment were pointing it out.
tneva82 wrote: So why then aeldar soup is king? And why imperium soup's without castellan are doing better than non-soup's? Soup isn't new to 8th ed and has always caused problems starting from 2nd ed. Just because you can't see problems besides one unit doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The sheer FACT that you can cherry pick units at will removing weak points makes soup more powerful by default. Having faction with good h2h but poor shooting would be balancable without soup but then soup gives you both best h2h and best shooting for same cost.
There's never been any iteration of soup that isn't full of problems. No surprise since it's impossible.
If you want balanced allies you need to put in specific units inside faction. Rather than IG book and knight book with own costs etc and ability to mix and match you need to have 1 books with same units but with specific restrictions and costs for both according to how they work together. That's the only way allies can be made to work. Having them on separate lists that works on their own and then can be mixed at will is always going to be broken.
I already said this in a different thread, but I'll repeat it for you.
Why would I take just the broken units in my codex if I can take other broken ones too? Why would I limit myself if the goal is to win?
If you fix the broken units, you don't get this issue. Infantry are already mathematically too good, regardless of what Guard apologists say. So why is that an issue with allies? It isn't. Same thing with Castellans and Cawls Wrath being stupid.
I think this is really flawed reasoning.
40k is inherently unbalancable. There will always be stronger units, and having access to those across multiple armies without restriction or penalty will always be a problem.
I'm not saying that Infantry Squads or Castellans don't need work. I'd increase points of the former and limit access to Invuln stacking for the latter, at the very least.
I'm saying that even if you did that, Imperium soup would still be preferable in some form to any Imperium mono list.
That's also because of a lack of internal balance too.
For example, Marine artillery shouldn't be bad simply because that's not what the army is known for. If the unit exists, it should be okay at its role. Does that make sense?
Bharring wrote: "Fixing Doom is super simple. "
Because Castellian-Loyal32-Beatstick lists have it too rough. Lets nuke the thing that hurts them the *most*.
Why do people want to nerf one of the few combos that can actually threaten to remove a Knight?
I'm sure everyone who wants to fix the doom combo-wombo is not also proposing rules changes that fix the issue of knights fueled with guard CP.
Definitely not proposing they both get fixed simultaneously.
If the castellan could only use CP generated by Imperial Knights Detachments, it would be ZERO problem in competitive play. Zero. That would cut the CP pool they have access to from 20+ with regen to an absolute maximum of 9 (assuming you can use the 3 battleforged CPs for whatever you want) AND you'd have other knight chassis on the table who would not have the 3++ that makes the castellan so defensively problematic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looking at how the meta is shaking out it is evident that both eldar soup and imp soup are equivalently a problem. They make up almost a perfect 50-50 split of the armies in competitve play.
I actually like the guard list that won overall. Sure the Castellan is still OP and needs to be brought in line but a friend and I reviewed the top 8 on a podcast/vidcast we are starting and the list actually felt fluffy. Way better than that ridiculous cancer Ynnari flyer list with 7 flyers and 18 scatbikes.
If there were more viable indirect fire weapons, that list would get autotabled too often to be viable. But IG has a monopoly on those. Because reasons.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Increase the cost of Guardsmen by 1ppm and the Castellan by ~100 or so and suddenly that Custodes detachment you seem to be forgetting is not the same, possibly not even there and then the list plays quite differently I suspect.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Increase the cost of Guardsmen by 1ppm and the Castellan by ~100 or so and suddenly that Custodes detachment you seem to be forgetting is not the same, possibly not even there and then the list plays quite differently I suspect.
Wait, wasn't the custodes the other guard list, not the winning list? There were two. One was all Catachan with a Castellan, one was Valhallan I think with a bunch of tank commanders, 2 dawneagles + Trajann and a Castellan.
I thought the winner was the one with basically mono guard + Knight.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Well it beats eldar, so it seems. Haven't you notice how eldar player praised the cpt smash nerf, and how castellans are suppose to be the worse thing ever, but when someone brings up dual spears, reapers or multi flyer lists they get the not-all-eldar talk?
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Well it beats eldar, so it seems. Haven't you notice how eldar player praised the cpt smash nerf, and how castellans are suppose to be the worse thing ever, but when someone brings up dual spears, reapers or multi flyer lists they get the not-all-eldar talk?
Eh, I'm an Aeldari player and I'd be very happy for them to get some nerfs. There's a lot of undercosted stuff in the factions and Soulburst is still game breaking.
That doesn't mean the Guard/Knight list doesn't also need nerfs.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Increase the cost of Guardsmen by 1ppm and the Castellan by ~100 or so and suddenly that Custodes detachment you seem to be forgetting is not the same, possibly not even there and then the list plays quite differently I suspect.
There's no custodes detachment. You're just talking about a different list. This is Brandon's: https://imgur.com/a/QefIDNJ
This list is like... 40k how the designers would want you to play it. It's legit.
The Castellan is certainly a strong unit at the moment which offers a lot of durability and firepower for 600 points, but it's not wildly OP. I think the mistake is the 3+ invulnerable save.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Increase the cost of Guardsmen by 1ppm and the Castellan by ~100 or so and suddenly that Custodes detachment you seem to be forgetting is not the same, possibly not even there and then the list plays quite differently I suspect.
There's no custodes detachment. You're just talking about a different list. This is Brandon's: https://imgur.com/a/QefIDNJ
This list is like... 40k how the designers would want you to play it. It's legit.
The Castellan is certainly a strong unit at the moment which offers a lot of durability and firepower for 600 points, but it's not wildly OP. I think the mistake is the 3+ invulnerable save.
Yeah, that was the list I thought won. Sure the Castellan is too good, but that list is legit and even somewhat fluffy. Hellhounds and Mortars with Catachan? Rough Riders that I hope to god were converted somehow as scouts? A priest to keep the troops in line? About my only complaint would be that the guard squads are all barebones, no special weapon or anything, but even that's not too far-fetched.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, that was the list I thought won. Sure the Castellan is too good, but that list is legit and even somewhat fluffy. Hellhounds and Mortars with Catachan? Rough Riders that I hope to god were converted somehow as scouts? A priest to keep the troops in line? About my only complaint would be that the guard squads are all barebones, no special weapon or anything, but even that's not too far-fetched.
Yep, sorry, that was the #3 list. Anyhow, I don't need to contribute to the 'discussion' about the abuse of undercosted Imperial units, there are many others who will carry the torch.
"Because its bs vs everyone else. You don't need it vs BA, but still get it vs me."
It's not BS versus my Marines. It's only BS versus lists centered around a 500pt+ unit.
Against even a Gman Razorback list (which isn't all that good now), it's useful but not that useful. A single Razorback a turn dies maybe 33% faster? Not what I'd call BS.
Doom *only* doubles firepower vs a single unit only when you're wounding on 6s. Any other case, it's less than double. And, it can only impact at most 1 unit per turn. Against many lists, that can mean less than a Smite.
Doom does well against most lists, but only reaches "BS"-level when facing BS lists - specifically ones that pump more than a quarter of their points into a single "unkillable" thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're talking about BA. The army with HQs that can one-round a Knight solo. An HQ making a single target die faster, but less than twice as fast, doesn't seem so OP in comparison.
Based on the results of this very tournament it would seem that SM already compete with the top armies without a bolter rule crutch....
If the mono-SM army needed Guilliman to get there, then no I wouldn't say that at all. I'd say mono-SM underperforms without an undercosted crutch unit.
Good luck killing anything with a ba hq after the fly nerf. Go try it. I will take your eldar and wipe every ba list in existence like helpless children. And you want to talk about the double nerfed capt smash.
Doom is bs vs against every list because you are getting the benefits of gmoney without paying for gmoney.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Increase the cost of Guardsmen by 1ppm and the Castellan by ~100 or so and suddenly that Custodes detachment you seem to be forgetting is not the same, possibly not even there and then the list plays quite differently I suspect.
Sheesh.
If the Castellen is so good why isn't the Chaos one smashing face?
Or do you just not understand the platform is fine, and there needs to be a change in funneling 15 CP through a platform designed to have maybe 9 through it?
If the Castellen is so good why isn't the Chaos one smashing face?
Or do you just not understand the platform is fine, and there needs to be a change in funneling 15 CP through a platform designed to have maybe 9 through it?
I would suspect it's because the rules supporting it are a 2 page PDF and two stratagems, but that's just why I don't bother with getting one. There's also the fact that it has almost no synergy with any of the Chaos codices.
Then why are you trying to Nerf the Castellan, that you just said isn't the issue, versus calling out the issue, the CP factory and Stratagems that make it OP?
Bharring wrote: "Fixing Doom is super simple. "
Because Castellian-Loyal32-Beatstick lists have it too rough. Lets nuke the thing that hurts them the *most*.
Why do people want to nerf one of the few combos that can actually threaten to remove a Knight?
It's a matter of how psyker bonuses work now. You get to cast something like that and all your allies benefit.
I don't think that changing it for just Craftworld getting the bonus is asking too much, is it?
Reemule wrote: Then why are you trying to Nerf the Castellan, that you just said isn't the issue, versus calling out the issue, the CP factory and Stratagems that make it OP?
I'm really considering not engaging in this obviously disingenuous argument. I didn't say it wasn't the issue, I just said that the Chaos version doesn't have the supporting mechanisms in place to truly make it shine.
So here's my very basic statement, in small words. The Castellan is too cheap for what it can do, both for Chaos and Imperium, it just happens to be much better for Imperium than it is for Chaos.
I don't play Choas. Since we seem to be arguing about the big knight And how it is super unbalanced once it has infantry support; how come there were no renegade knights at the top tables?
They can take cheep cultists for screens and scoring right? The can take deamon princes as Smashfuckers, maybe not as good as the Golden bikers but still they can put something in that role. And honestly the cheep troops and big knight seem to be the killer combo.
Headlss wrote: I don't play Choas. Since we seem to be arguing about the big knight And how it is super unbalanced once it has infantry support; how come there were no renegade knights at the top tables?
They can take cheep cultists for screens and scoring right? The can take deamon princes as Smashfuckers, maybe not as good as the Golden bikers but still they can put something in that role. And honestly the cheep troops and big knight seem to be the killer combo.
What does the imperium have that chaos doesn't?
This. Chaos has everything to replicate the winning list... except 15 CP to funnel through the Castellan with Raven Strat. But no doubt Chaos players just don't take it cause its not good enough..
Also 2 stratagems and 1 relic as opposed to 2 pages of stratagems and 2 pages of relics.
The relics and stratagems of the Guard add basically nothing to do the list. Iron Bulwark, rotate Ion shields and Cawl's Wrath are much more impactfull obviously.
i think i've also decided that the Ynnari flyer list basically embodies the problems I have with ITC. It has almost no board presence and can't play objectives. It just kills stuff and that's it.
Put it in a more European style tournament like ETC and its going to flounder as its unable to score points and hold objectives.
Ordana wrote: The relics and stratagems of the Guard add basically nothing to do the list. Iron Bulwark, rotate Ion shields and Cawl's Wrath are much more impactfull obviously.
I tend to agree, without going and looking at my AM codex to confirm. However, the question was why Chaos doesn't use the Castellan, it's a combination of the Chaos Castellan being a pale shadow of the Imperial one and the fact that Chaos has other super-heavy options with better synergy, even if they ultimately tend to come up short against AM/Castellan lists.
Are we at the stage where people are suggesting that 1400 points of Imperial Guard and 1 knight is "cancer"???
it's not even "soup". It's just 1 allied detachment.
That's pure nonsense.
Increase the cost of Guardsmen by 1ppm and the Castellan by ~100 or so and suddenly that Custodes detachment you seem to be forgetting is not the same, possibly not even there and then the list plays quite differently I suspect.
There's no custodes detachment. You're just talking about a different list. This is Brandon's: https://imgur.com/a/QefIDNJ
This list is like... 40k how the designers would want you to play it. It's legit.
The Castellan is certainly a strong unit at the moment which offers a lot of durability and firepower for 600 points, but it's not wildly OP. I think the mistake is the 3+ invulnerable save.
The castellan is wildly OP because it has access to three plus invuls, the ability to ignore degradation, warlord traits and relics. That's how you make a unit OP. It's the same reason Ynnarri gak is OP, because the ability to shoot or move or fight twice isn't statted into the units, so points efficient units become stupid when they can do their efficient thing twice. It's why the smash captain was OP. GW badly designed certain stratagems and powers.
Ordana wrote: i think i've also decided that the Ynnari flyer list basically embodies the problems I have with ITC. It has almost no board presence and can't play objectives. It just kills stuff and that's it.
Put it in a more European style tournament like ETC and its going to flounder as its unable to score points and hold objectives.
The Ynnari 7-flyer list is a pretty cool example of an absolute "I'm going to try and take no.1 using every cheesy trick available to me" pure competitive list though. If that style of list ever becomes prevalent then yeah, ITC will probably need to change some stuff up. But I'm always entertained when one or two players in a 700+ player event come up with some silly way to try and break the ruleset and win the event.
I'm also glad he made it as far as he did because otherwise the finals would have almost certainly been Castellan vs Castellan...
"It's a matter of how psyker bonuses work now. You get to cast something like that and all your allies benefit.
I don't think that changing it for just Craftworld getting the bonus is asking too much, is it?"
No, that's not how psyker powers work for *any* army I'm aware of.
"Doom is bs vs against every list because you are getting the benefits of gmoney without paying for gmoney."
"GMoney": reroll all hits and reroll all wounds in a bubble
Doom: Reroll wounds against a single target enemy unit
So:
a. Not rerolling hits
b. Not rerolling when hitting anything but the one target
c. Psykic power instead of aura
IOW, you get less than half of Gman (the Wounds half), and unless they have a single large unit, you only get a fraction of his ability (because if the largest target you're shooting at is ~200 points, you're going to be shooting at multiple targets), and there's still a reasonable chance it just won't happen (fail the power or be denied - not super likely but not 100%).
Doom is nowhere near half of Gman.
Doom is closer to a Lt. Reroll-1s-to-wound aura does more than reroll-failed-wounds when you're shooting multiple targets. A *lot* more in many cases. And an LT is a lot cheaper than a Farseer.
This isn't to say Doom is bad. It's to say Doom isn't the OP gak you think it is.
Also, just how much is Doom doing to most non-Knight lists? Consider the 2xRepulsors, 3xPreds Gman list. One of those 3 targets is getting Doomed. That one target is certainly dying. But, honestly, how many shooty lists *can't* kill a Predator? And how much does Doom help on the second Predator (or Repulsor)?
The more you use Marines, or even non-Superheavies from the IG book, the less Doom does to you. For some lists, Smite is scarier than Doom.
Final note:
After a tourny dominated by IoM with Knights and a smattering of Eldar, you flock to the forums to discuss how to nerf *Eldar*, and specifically the weapon that's really only godly against Knights?
Shouldn't you be more concerned about Knights? Shouldn't an anti-Knight power be one of the last things you complain about?
I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
Headlss wrote: I don't play Choas. Since we seem to be arguing about the big knight And how it is super unbalanced once it has infantry support; how come there were no renegade knights at the top tables?
They can take cheep cultists for screens and scoring right? The can take deamon princes as Smashfuckers, maybe not as good as the Golden bikers but still they can put something in that role. And honestly the cheep troops and big knight seem to be the killer combo.
What does the imperium have that chaos doesn't?
Stratagems, warlord traits, Relics, and household traits.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
I always say, ITC is not warhammer, its ITCHammer, its a different game, a different meta. Play CA/Book missions and you play a completely different game.
I'm trying to get my group to play City of Deaths as base rules, as its also a different game completely (my local is getting bored with 40k). We are about to start a league using it.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
I always say, ITC is not warhammer, its ITCHammer, its a different game, a different meta. Play CA/Book missions and you play a completely different game.
I'm trying to get my group to play City of Deaths as base rules, as its also a different game completely (my local is getting bored with 40k). We are about to start a league using it.
That's the spirit. Looks like it'll be a blast, too.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
I always say, ITC is not warhammer, its ITCHammer, its a different game, a different meta. Play CA/Book missions and you play a completely different game.
I'm trying to get my group to play City of Deaths as base rules, as its also a different game completely (my local is getting bored with 40k). We are about to start a league using it.
And the best lists are still ynnari and guard with castellan, but even harder
Headlss wrote: I don't play Choas. Since we seem to be arguing about the big knight And how it is super unbalanced once it has infantry support; how come there were no renegade knights at the top tables?
They can take cheep cultists for screens and scoring right? The can take deamon princes as Smashfuckers, maybe not as good as the Golden bikers but still they can put something in that role. And honestly the cheep troops and big knight seem to be the killer combo.
What does the imperium have that chaos doesn't?
Stratagems, warlord traits, Relics, and household traits.
The imperium list has better buffs. Are they in the knight book? Or the guard book?
Bharring wrote: "It's a matter of how psyker bonuses work now. You get to cast something like that and all your allies benefit.
I don't think that changing it for just Craftworld getting the bonus is asking too much, is it?"
No, that's not how psyker powers work for *any* army I'm aware of.
"Doom is bs vs against every list because you are getting the benefits of gmoney without paying for gmoney."
"GMoney": reroll all hits and reroll all wounds in a bubble
Doom: Reroll wounds against a single target enemy unit
So:
a. Not rerolling hits
b. Not rerolling when hitting anything but the one target
c. Psykic power instead of aura
IOW, you get less than half of Gman (the Wounds half), and unless they have a single large unit, you only get a fraction of his ability (because if the largest target you're shooting at is ~200 points, you're going to be shooting at multiple targets), and there's still a reasonable chance it just won't happen (fail the power or be denied - not super likely but not 100%).
Doom is nowhere near half of Gman.
Doom is closer to a Lt. Reroll-1s-to-wound aura does more than reroll-failed-wounds when you're shooting multiple targets. A *lot* more in many cases. And an LT is a lot cheaper than a Farseer.
This isn't to say Doom is bad. It's to say Doom isn't the OP gak you think it is.
Also, just how much is Doom doing to most non-Knight lists? Consider the 2xRepulsors, 3xPreds Gman list. One of those 3 targets is getting Doomed. That one target is certainly dying. But, honestly, how many shooty lists *can't* kill a Predator? And how much does Doom help on the second Predator (or Repulsor)?
The more you use Marines, or even non-Superheavies from the IG book, the less Doom does to you. For some lists, Smite is scarier than Doom.
Final note:
After a tourny dominated by IoM with Knights and a smattering of Eldar, you flock to the forums to discuss how to nerf *Eldar*, and specifically the weapon that's really only godly against Knights?
Shouldn't you be more concerned about Knights? Shouldn't an anti-Knight power be one of the last things you complain about?
Doom in and of it's self isn't the main concern it's the interactions between doom and haywire, most vehicals are T7/8 with most of the best being T8 so your rerolling everything else which does have some odd effects due to the on 6's effect.
Against T7 it's less of an issue, but it also bypassing armour and invulnerable saves.
It hurts vrs knights but it hurts against FW dreadnaughts, repulsors and Stormsurge, Riptides.
Cross codex interactions between rules have not been kept in mind by GW during balancing.
Bharring wrote: "Fixing Doom is super simple. "
Because Castellian-Loyal32-Beatstick lists have it too rough. Lets nuke the thing that hurts them the *most*.
Why do people want to nerf one of the few combos that can actually threaten to remove a Knight?
It's a matter of how psyker bonuses work now. You get to cast something like that and all your allies benefit.
I don't think that changing it for just Craftworld getting the bonus is asking too much, is it?
There is no reason to ask it, its like asking dex hex not to help all chaos forces.
Eldar already pay premium for that, you lose 5-7% of your army for pshycher who is terrible at everything else and there is still chance you will not get the benefit. For instance yesterday Sean Nayden failed in one turn doom, jux and word, so his 400 pts pshychers failed to do their main task and that left spears unprotected and Castellan killed them all and the Yncarne in one round. Castellan and guard is guarantee value regardless the dice, for instance in the final the IG player had terrible dice luck and was still able to win simple because he knew what to target and knew that flyers don`t give ground control.
Smart player abusing that the flat value and having units in every situation is better than to rely on risky spells.
It`s the some reason in the top 34 there are maybe only eldar non Ynnari players, that really tell that doom is not really a issue.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
I always say, ITC is not warhammer, its ITCHammer, its a different game, a different meta. Play CA/Book missions and you play a completely different game.
I'm trying to get my group to play City of Deaths as base rules, as its also a different game completely (my local is getting bored with 40k). We are about to start a league using it.
And the best lists are still ynnari and guard with castellan, but even harder
You havent play them in the new CA missions i take it. Nids/Orks wins over them hands down.
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
This I agree with. ITC missions are bland boring and simplistic and feel like they were designed by a committee. (and they kinda were). All they really have going for them is they are fair. GW missions feel like they should be on a SAW movie and someone self amputates an arm.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
Well, we can test this now, can't we?
Some people proxy the lists in the last game and play through the CA missions and lets see which one comes out on top more often.
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
I'd agree with this at the start of 8th but with all the additional missions GW has put out over time, the ITC ones really don't seem that great any more. Also does anyone have some clear pictures of the tables? I want to get a feel for how much terrain was used.
So I'm really interested to see what 10th-Placed Matthew Allee's "boring Eldar" list really looks like. Can't seem to find it on the website. Anyone have an idea?
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
I always say, ITC is not warhammer, its ITCHammer, its a different game, a different meta. Play CA/Book missions and you play a completely different game.
I'm trying to get my group to play City of Deaths as base rules, as its also a different game completely (my local is getting bored with 40k). We are about to start a league using it.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
I always say, ITC is not warhammer, its ITCHammer, its a different game, a different meta. Play CA/Book missions and you play a completely different game.
I'm trying to get my group to play City of Deaths as base rules, as its also a different game completely (my local is getting bored with 40k). We are about to start a league using it.
That's the spirit. Looks like it'll be a blast, too.
Wish we'd finally abandon ITC rules...
100% agree. That will actually be the subject of my rant; that ITC is not needed anymore other than maybe as a sort of international ranking system. No reason to have missions that enhance listbuilding and don't have any twists. I would even argue that CA2018 Maelstrom missions would be better despite the randomness because A) The 2018 missions let you remove some cards from your deck and B) The randomness is intended to make you not take a skew list but an actual balanced list that can deal with a vareity of situations. Even the Eternal War missions have that little extra parts that hurt the real spammy skew lists and make you want to build a well balanced list instead.
Yes really, you just don't have to only care about killing units and taking objectives like ITC (the champions missions are virtually identical, the only difference is where objectives are placed and the "mission" is exactly the same), and you can't tailor secondary objectives against your opponent's army while also trying to game them yourself to deny as much as possible.
The ITC Champion missions are 100% designed to push list building as the most important part of the game. Everything about them puts list building at the top of importance. The CA2018 missions introduce slight imbalances (or random imbalance in Maelstrom) that counterbalance the emphasis on list building and combo stacking.
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
Killing your opponent should be something that happens in the course of trying to complete your objectives.
Not the objective itself.
There is more then enough incentive to kill units without almost every objective giving me points for killing my opponent.
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
I'd agree with this at the start of 8th but with all the additional missions GW has put out over time, the ITC ones really don't seem that great any more. Also does anyone have some clear pictures of the tables? I want to get a feel for how much terrain was used.
Lots of terrain. Considerably sized LOS blockers.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godswildcard wrote: So I'm really interested to see what 10th-Placed Matthew Allee's "boring Eldar" list really looks like. Can't seem to find it on the website. Anyone have an idea?
I guess boring means just like all the rest?
Eldrad
Yvraine
Ranger
2x5 Dire Avengers
10 Reapers
Wave Serpent
The ITC Champion missions are 100% designed to push list building as the most important part of the game. Everything about them puts list building at the top of importance. The CA2018 missions introduce slight imbalances (or random imbalance in Maelstrom) that counterbalance the emphasis on list building and combo stacking.
Ok but how many armies can list build? IG and their soups, eldar and their soups and that is more or less it. Maybe ultramarines too, can pull of some skew build. Everyone else would have to buy 3000-4000pts of models just to play the majority of the missions and switch lists depending which scenrio is played. It still wouldn't mind though that when face with an IG or eldar list they would have a greater chance to win then now. They would spend more money, so I guess people that have shops or paint studios would be happy. GW probably too.
Headlss wrote: I don't play Choas. Since we seem to be arguing about the big knight And how it is super unbalanced once it has infantry support; how come there were no renegade knights at the top tables?
They can take cheep cultists for screens and scoring right? The can take deamon princes as Smashfuckers, maybe not as good as the Golden bikers but still they can put something in that role. And honestly the cheep troops and big knight seem to be the killer combo.
What does the imperium have that chaos doesn't?
Stratagems, warlord traits, Relics, and household traits.
The imperium list has better buffs. Are they in the knight book? Or the guard book?
They're indelibly connected, especially the Stratagems.
I don't know what the other poster you were arguing with suggested, but killing CP sharing so we can put a bullet in the head of CP batteries is my preferred solution. See how it shakes out then buff/nerf where relevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
Well, we can test this now, can't we?
Some people proxy the lists in the last game and play through the CA missions and lets see which one comes out on top more often.
Because everyone here is just as good as the top 4 at LVO and it's 100% the list that determines victory.
Wayniac wrote: I could definitely go on a rant about how ITC missions are bad because of how they are. But I'm saving it for my podcast since I'd probably spend the entire hour and a half ranting about it.
Well, we can test this now, can't we?
Some people proxy the lists in the last game and play through the CA missions and lets see which one comes out on top more often.
Because everyone here is just as good as the top 4 at LVO and it's 100% the list that determines victory.
Dakka, you've lost your damn mind
He said the missions are bad. You don't need to be a total genius to use those lists. It's quite easy to demonstrate the balance of missions if the same people play different missions with the same lists each game.
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
This I agree with. ITC missions are bland boring and simplistic and feel like they were designed by a committee. (and they kinda were). All they really have going for them is they are fair. GW missions feel like they should be on a SAW movie and someone self amputates an arm.
I feel like that is the whole point to a competitive system. It should be fair and not random. The objectives should be fair, as should the terrain.
I dont think there is anything wrong with list building being a core part of a competitive game either. GW can obviously tweak things to change the meta.
I feel like if we buffed eldar a little, maybe they are like the only factions that can use the other transports and such, ya know make them 10x better, people will just accept their supremacy. Right now, people whine to much about losing to them. If we make it a given that they’ll lose, you fix the need to whine about it from other players. Then both players can just focus on having fun in the game because the outcome is known. /seriousnotjoking
Martel732 wrote: ITC is better than the sewage gw passes off as missions.
This I agree with. ITC missions are bland boring and simplistic and feel like they were designed by a committee. (and they kinda were). All they really have going for them is they are fair. GW missions feel like they should be on a SAW movie and someone self amputates an arm.
Daedalus81, on what world does that count as "lots of terrain"? Some blocking walls and crates does not equate to a meaningful amount except in the most minimal sense.
The amount should be at least doubled and have a healthy dose of scatter terrain on top of that. Then add Cities of Death on top and the game gets good.
Which is better ITS or GW missions? Well there is no actual answer to that question since that is a 100% opinion based. They both have their pros and cons.
However, what is factual is ITC missions are so different than GW missions that it is in essence playing a very different game. This starts to become a problem when GW uses large events like LVO to make balance changes. There are a number of units that really shine in the ITC world that are not amazing in GW mission land. The opposite is also true.
I have been a big proponent of GW coming out with an actual mission set that is to be used for competitive events. Something along the lines of Warmachine/Hordes steamroller packet. Just like Privateer press they would be able to update it yearly. This would make balancing the game a bit easier since everyone would be using the same rule sets for competitive events.
The Salt Mine wrote: I have been a big proponent of GW coming out with an actual mission set that is to be used for competitive events. Something along the lines of Warmachine/Hordes steamroller packet. Just like Privateer press they would be able to update it yearly. This would make balancing the game a bit easier since everyone would be using the same rule sets for competitive events.
Isn't this exactly what Chapter Approved is meant to be?
The Salt Mine wrote: I have been a big proponent of GW coming out with an actual mission set that is to be used for competitive events. Something along the lines of Warmachine/Hordes steamroller packet. Just like Privateer press they would be able to update it yearly. This would make balancing the game a bit easier since everyone would be using the same rule sets for competitive events.
Isn't this exactly what Chapter Approved is meant to be?
I dont see how. Its chapter approved, not tournament pack.
Re watched the final and i have to congratulate Brandon Grant for his tactic, he did not choke and always targeted the right targets durring the game.
The score really lies, Grant was in control in all the game an the Ynnari player needed miracle dices to win the game.
Ynnari 1 turn - the Ynnari player targeted and kiled the bulgrins, 1 wyvern, some infantry and managed to put the 2 wyvern to 3 wounds.
IG 1 turn - Grant targeted and killed on of the 9 man windrides squads and after he was done managed to get 1 of the DE flyers, the wyvern got lucky and managed to finish it. But the main point is he moved the infantry into the central objective and the point generation started.
Ynnari 2 turn - Ynnari player moved his warlock and farseer and casted jinx and doom on the knight, Yvraine failed word, Vect stopped the rotation on the shields and almost everything hit the Castellan. It was not enough and the knight remained on 7 wounds.
IG 2 turn - Vect stopped the Machine Spirit Resurgent and the Ynnari player run out of CP, Grant continio the plan the remove Ynnari groun units, most of the second windriders squad was killed. The Castellan rolled pretty poorly and managed to kill only 1 of the DE flyers. Infantry leaded by Straken pored into middle objective and the the fear of catachan charge forced Ynnari player to play passive with his little ground troops. Strangelly the Farseer was not charged, probably Grant did not want to expose his infantry to windrider fire. The warlock was to exposed after the first round so he died(not entirely sure maybe he died in the next round).
Ynnari 3 turn - doom was cast on the already weekened Casstellan, word of the phoenix failed again. The planes managed to get the Casstellan and hurt one of the fire tanks, some infantry go down, but not really enough.
IG 3 turn - rough riders come from reserve near the exposed farseer and put some damage to him, grant started killing the little eldar infantry, so there was little chance of late comeback. Eldar army did not had any way to beat Straken in melee combat.
Ynnari 4 turn - nothing spectacular flyers killing the tank(wyvern never died, but it was outside of the cam so i`m not sure), the rought riders and a bunch of infantry.
IG 4 - straken and a 1 infantry squad charged and killed the farseer, infantry shooted according to the comment 120 times on the hemlock and did a bunch of wounds on him.
The ground control contionio to punp points for Grant and was ensuring his victory since there was little chance for 6 turn.
Ynnari turn 5 - nothing to say the flyers and the leftovers of the eldar tried to kill enough of the infantry in the middle, so they can engage and tried to get the mid obj. The dice were not favorable and a bunch of commanders were left in mid to control the obj.
IG 5 - nothing here to say, the commanders moved on the obj and it was clear the IG have won the game, since there was no time for round 6.
Grant played very strong tactical game, he give priority on easy to kill units that can clear his infantry from turn one, he knew the flyers will rule supreme but after the last FAQ they can`t control objective so he was not worried about that. He did not fall in the trap of trying to kill the Crimson Hunters, who are -2 to hit. Castellan took almost 1.5 turn of shooting and if he was not so unclucky could have done even more damage to the DE flyers, so he could have removed even more dakka from killing his cheap infantry.
He abused the fact that the eldar don`t have melee and used the big building in mid for his adv. Have to give credit to Harrison who targeted the bulgrins in the first turn, before his windriders got killed and before Grant had time to put them in the mid building in cover.
Really i don`t see a way Harrison could have won this game, it was uphill battle from turn one. It was nice to see flyers killing staff all game, but in he end the cheap bodies won it.
Maybe his only chance was to play super fast and had time, so he can make alone turn 6, kill the characters with the flyers and get some extra points. Of course that is easy to say after you saw all the game in replay, without him calculating his moves he could have lost because of critical mistake.
Salute to Grant you had the best army and he knew what to do with it against every opponent, without doing big mistakes, he followed the plan in his head to the tooth, without panic and without doing risky moves.
Marin wrote: Re watched the final and i have to congratulate Brandon Grant for his tactic, he did not choke and always targeted the right targets durring the game.
The score really lies, Grant was in control in all the game an the Ynnari player needed miracle dices to win the game.
Ynnari 1 turn - the Ynnari player targeted and kiled the bulgrins, 1 wyvern, some infantry and managed to put the 2 wyvern to 3 wounds.
IG 1 turn - Grant targeted and killed on of the 9 man windrides squads and after he was done managed to get 1 of the DE flyers, the wyvern got lucky and managed to finish it. But the main point is he moved the infantry into the central objective and the point generation started.
Ynnari 2 turn - Ynnari player moved his warlock and farseer and casted jinx and doom on the knight, Yvraine failed word, Vect stopped the rotation on the shields and almost everything hit the Castellan. It was not enough and the knight remained on 7 wounds.
IG 2 turn - Vect stopped the Machine Spirit Resurgent and the Ynnari player run out of CP, Grant continio the plan the remove Ynnari groun units, most of the second windriders squad was killed. The Castellan rolled pretty poorly and managed to kill only 1 of the DE flyers. Infantry leaded by Straken pored into middle objective and the the fear of catachan charge forced Ynnari player to play passive with his little ground troops. Strangelly the Farseer was not charged, probably Grant did not want to expose his infantry to windrider fire. The warlock was to exposed after the first round so he died(not entirely sure maybe he died in the next round).
Ynnari 3 turn - doom was cast on the already weekened Casstellan, word of the phoenix failed again. The planes managed to get the Casstellan and hurt one of the fire tanks, some infantry go down, but not really enough.
IG 3 turn - rough riders come from reserve near the exposed farseer and put some damage to him, grant started killing the little eldar infantry, so there was little chance of late comeback. Eldar army did not had any way to beat Straken in melee combat.
Ynnari 4 turn - nothing spectacular flyers killing the tank(wyvern never died, but it was outside of the cam so i`m not sure), the rought riders and a bunch of infantry.
IG 4 - straken and a 1 infantry squad charged and killed the farseer, infantry shooted according to the comment 120 times on the hemlock and did a bunch of wounds on him.
The ground control contionio to punp points for Grant and was ensuring his victory since there was little chance for 6 turn.
Ynnari turn 5 - nothing to say the flyers and the leftovers of the eldar tried to kill enough of the infantry in the middle, so they can engage and tried to get the mid obj. The dice were not favorable and a bunch of commanders were left in mid to control the obj.
IG 5 - nothing here to say, the commanders moved on the obj and it was clear the IG have won the game, since there was no time for round 6.
Grant played very strong tactical game, he give priority on easy to kill units that can clear his infantry from turn one, he knew the flyers will rule supreme but after the last FAQ they can`t control objective so he was not worried about that. He did not fall in the trap of trying to kill the Crimson Hunters, who are -2 to hit. Castellan took almost 1.5 turn of shooting and if he was not so unclucky could have done even more damage to the DE flyers, so he could have removed even more dakka from killing his cheap infantry.
He abused the fact that the eldar don`t have melee and used the big building in mid for his adv. Have to give credit to Harrison who targeted the bulgrins in the first turn, before his windriders got killed and before Grant had time to put them in the mid building in cover.
Really i don`t see a way Harrison could have won this game, it was uphill battle from turn one. It was nice to see flyers killing staff all game, but in he end the cheap bodies won it.
Maybe his only chance was to play super fast and had time, so he can make alone turn 6, kill the characters with the flyers and get some extra points. Of course that is easy to say after you saw all the game in replay, without him calculating his moves he could have lost because of critical mistake.
Salute to Grant you had the best army and he knew what to do with it against every opponent, without doing big mistakes, he followed the plan in his head to the tooth, without panic and without doing risky moves.
The Salt Mine wrote: I have been a big proponent of GW coming out with an actual mission set that is to be used for competitive events. Something along the lines of Warmachine/Hordes steamroller packet. Just like Privateer press they would be able to update it yearly. This would make balancing the game a bit easier since everyone would be using the same rule sets for competitive events.
Isn't this exactly what Chapter Approved is meant to be?
Yes. the GW Matched Play missions are meant to be used for competitive play. But as you can see, people dislike that the Eternal War missions have little twists which are meant to counteract being able to build what you want and help balance things out by making you aware of them, and Maelstrom (which are also really good in CA18 due to being able to remove certain cards) are loathed even more because the cards are still random, despite this being part of the intentional balance as since you aren't sure what you could pull, you need to build a list that can handle a variety of situations instead of a skew gimmick that does one thing very well.
So instead you have bland ITC missions that only have two points: Kill units and hold objectives, with no twist or anything to encourage anything else, which means all you see are these gimmick lists designed to kill units or hold objectives (such as that degenerate 7 flyer Eldar list) since nothing else matters, and secondary objectives you can pick and choose which add more listbuilding; it was changed recently but at one point The Reaping gave you 1 VP if you killed 10 or more models, 2 if 20 or more; so you'd see everyone running big squads at 19 to deny 1 VP. While this was changed (it's now just 10+ IIRC) it's an example of how gamey ITC missions were and how they put even more emphasis on list building.
How do you know what gw's missions are meant for? GW is the beer and pretzels arm, itc the competitive arm.
I dislike GW still not being able to write good missions. Not the twists. The twists are bad and maelstrom is a dumpster fire even pulling some cards out.
The Salt Mine wrote: Which is better ITS or GW missions? Well there is no actual answer to that question since that is a 100% opinion based. They both have their pros and cons.
However, what is factual is ITC missions are so different than GW missions that it is in essence playing a very different game.
This is my issue. If I went to a tournament I'd expect to be playing 40K with default missions. I don't like the ITC missions at all. 40K has missions built into the rulebook that are fine and balanced for basic competitive play, whether they be objective based or kill point scoring (I think objectives are better for tournament play though).
Martel732 wrote: How do you know what gw's missions are meant for? GW is the beer and pretzels arm, itc the competitive arm.
I dislike GW still not being able to write good missions. Not the twists. The twists are bad and maelstrom is a dumpster fire even pulling some cards out.
And yet don't the official Warhammer GTs, you know, the ones at Warhammer World, use their own matched play missions and not fanmade ones? I'm pretty sure there's a major tournament in Europe that uses Maelstrom as well.
The Salt Mine wrote: Which is better ITS or GW missions? Well there is no actual answer to that question since that is a 100% opinion based. They both have their pros and cons.
However, what is factual is ITC missions are so different than GW missions that it is in essence playing a very different game.
This is my issue. If I went to a tournament I'd expect to be playing 40K with default missions. I don't like the ITC missions at all. 40K has missions built into the rulebook that are fine and balanced for basic competitive play, whether they be objective based or kill point scoring (I think objectives are better for tournament play though).
Well to be fair the base rulebook ones aren't amazing. But the 2018 ones are great.
Martel732 wrote: Do they? I thought GW got out of the tournament business.
That's a major tournament I would never go to.
2018 eternal war missions are just more IG autowins. They are not good.
They have the GT Heats at Warhammer World in Nottingham, which I would consider to be more official than any ITC event since they are actually run by GW themselves, not GW endorsed through a third party.
Martel732 wrote: That's arguable, I suppose. GW did partially surrender their authority on this when they stomped off, though.
I really like the fact that ITC champions missions provide some downside for guardsmen. Not enough, evidently.
I just don't think GW missions do enough to slow down IG park and kill.
??
ITC is full of points for killing, it allows lists like the 7 flyers to exist because you don't have to worry about controlling 6 objectives on the table every turn.
Yes ITC does more to punish Hordes (Guard and otherwise) but GW's missions that force you out onto the table to control objectives are much worse for Guard to play in then ITC where they can sit in their deployment zone and send 1 Ogryn unit forward.
You cant control six obj vs ig anyway. Yes, there are points for killing in itc, but that includes reaper and butchers bill. There is at least some remote downside to hordes.
IG move faster than my jump troops. And cant be removed in a reasonable manner. They dominate power armor at take and hold. That's why I dont bother to play against ig in gw missions.
I mean more that the only thing you have to care about in ITC is killing and objectives.
The GW missions have twists to punish some of the really skewy lists like that 7 flyer abomination. Those things that people rail against are exactly what will help to reel in some of the problems.
Then why do we rarely see lots of guard crush everyone? This LVO seems to be the exception, most of the other major tournaments haven't been won by huge hordes, it's usually been Ynnari or Aeldari overwhelming firepower lists.
Note I don't mean "a list that has Guard" like Loyal 32, I mean an actual Guard army. I can't remember them dominating many of the big tournaments before now, at least not since the latest round of nerfs, although I think they have a good win rate.
Or is that the point, that if ITC was using the 2018 Eternal War missions it would be Guard all the way down?
I that ig would do much better with ca 2018 missions, yes. Reaper and butchers bill does just enough to reign in mono ig. But then they plug in castellan.
Sherrypie wrote: Daedalus81, on what world does that count as "lots of terrain"? Some blocking walls and crates does not equate to a meaningful amount except in the most minimal sense.
The amount should be at least doubled and have a healthy dose of scatter terrain on top of that. Then add Cities of Death on top and the game gets good.
I suppose you need to see it in person to get a feel for it, but there is enough to block LOS to a Castellan at times, so it's not just a bunch of crates. Keep in mind the area occupied by 3 large ruins.
I'm not sure how you could double that and have a functional (let alone afforable) table.
Sherrypie wrote: Daedalus81, on what world does that count as "lots of terrain"? Some blocking walls and crates does not equate to a meaningful amount except in the most minimal sense.
The amount should be at least doubled and have a healthy dose of scatter terrain on top of that. Then add Cities of Death on top and the game gets good.
For a large scale tournament that's more terrain than I generally have seen. I agree though that over all that is not a lot of terrain and certainly not a lot of LOS blocking terrain. The lack of scattered terrain which leads to a ton of open fire space hurts the game.
Martel732 wrote: I that ig would do much better with ca 2018 missions, yes. Reaper and butchers bill does just enough to reign in mono ig. But then they plug in castellan.
Soup is an issue, but not the only issue.
And yet outside of ITC IG are no more running rampant then they are in ITC (which is to say they are very much a top tier codex and winning their fair share of events, but its not wall to wall).
The downside with guard is that all the top lists will give away secondaries like no tomorrow. Its easy enough to get 12 points in secondaries. And some of the ITC missions require the guard to move out most of the time, I dont think castling is an option unless its the ones with only three objectives. It feels like to me that ITC doesnt favour guard soup in any way.
If a list cant clear out 60-80 guardsmen, its more likely a list build issue.
Imperial Soup is just as like to draw a mirror match but a player like Brandon would be able to overcome that easily with his skill.
If you want to hear some interesting information on the relative strength of IG and the Castellan, check out the Chapter Tactics Podcast #97. The keep of the stats at 40KStats.com actually went through the list for the major tournaments and figured out that IG + Castellanhad a rediculous win ratio (70-80%) while IG without a Castellan was sub 50% once you took out mirror matches from the statistics (because a mirro match yields a 50% win ratio). Imperial Knights with Castellans didn't have a stellar win rate either.
So the morale of the story is that IG + Castellan have strong synergy that neither list can acheive without the other.
alextroy wrote: If you want to hear some interesting information on the relative strength of IG and the Castellan, check out the Chapter Tactics Podcast #97. The keep of the stats at 40KStats.com actually went through the list for the major tournaments and figured out that IG + Castellanhad a rediculous win ratio (70-80%) while IG without a Castellan was sub 50% once you took out mirror matches from the statistics (because a mirro match yields a 50% win ratio). Imperial Knights with Castellans didn't have a stellar win rate either.
So the morale of the story is that IG + Castellan have strong synergy that neither list can acheive without the other.
Interesting. I'm not quite sure LVO agrees with that analysis. These are lists I looked through from top 100 or so for AM/IK
Grant - 100%
Snider - 87%
Horras - 100% (no Castellan)
Geiger - 83% (no Castellan)
Darre - 83%
Fain - 83% (Castellan & Loyal 32)
Weiss - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Wright - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Beardsly - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Stump - 83%
Harris - 83%
Fennel - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Estrada - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Pockat - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Pockat - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Richer - 66%
Sacco - 66%
Jones - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Ing - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Weiss - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Jeff J - 50%
Corless - 66%
Blakeborough - 66% (no Castellan)
Baker - 66%
Christensson - 66% (Knight, but no Castellan)
Sherrypie wrote: Daedalus81, on what world does that count as "lots of terrain"? Some blocking walls and crates does not equate to a meaningful amount except in the most minimal sense.
The amount should be at least doubled and have a healthy dose of scatter terrain on top of that. Then add Cities of Death on top and the game gets good.
I suppose you need to see it in person to get a feel for it, but there is enough to block LOS to a Castellan at times, so it's not just a bunch of crates. Keep in mind the area occupied by 3 large ruins.
I'm not sure how you could double that and have a functional (let alone afforable) table.
Nope, those pictures of yours tell enough about the lay of the land to say it's not enough. I get that large tournaments have to supply a lot of tables, but given how cheap it is to make good terrain from insulation foam, filler and bits, it really isn't an excuse if one wants to say terrain should matter with a straight face.
Those tables are nearly empty and mostly provide direct LoS blocking from some points of the table to others, instead of offering a mixture of big blocks, dense areas, open kill zones, scattered cover to dash into, proper roads or what not.
Doubling that MAKES the table functional and necessitates thinking about movement, if tanks actually cannot go through all alleys and not all movement can happen horizontally at full efficiency.
alextroy wrote: If you want to hear some interesting information on the relative strength of IG and the Castellan, check out the Chapter Tactics Podcast #97. The keep of the stats at 40KStats.com actually went through the list for the major tournaments and figured out that IG + Castellanhad a rediculous win ratio (70-80%) while IG without a Castellan was sub 50% once you took out mirror matches from the statistics (because a mirro match yields a 50% win ratio). Imperial Knights with Castellans didn't have a stellar win rate either.
So the morale of the story is that IG + Castellan have strong synergy that neither list can acheive without the other.
Interesting. I'm not quite sure LVO agrees with that analysis. These are lists I looked through from top 100 or so for AM/IK
Grant - 100%
Snider - 87%
Horras - 100% (no Castellan)
Geiger - 83% (no Castellan)
Darre - 83%
Fain - 83% (Castellan & Loyal 32)
Weiss - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Wright - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Beardsly - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Stump - 83%
Harris - 83%
Fennel - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Estrada - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Pockat - 83% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Pockat - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Richer - 66%
Sacco - 66%
Jones - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Ing - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Weiss - 66% (Knights, but no Castellan)
Jeff J - 50%
Corless - 66%
Blakeborough - 66% (no Castellan)
Baker - 66%
Christensson - 66% (Knight, but no Castellan)
Is that all the results for those codexes at LVO? It is an overall analysis, not a prediction of how any specific player will do.
Nope, those pictures of yours tell enough about the lay of the land to say it's not enough. I get that large tournaments have to supply a lot of tables, but given how cheap it is to make good terrain from insulation foam, filler and bits, it really isn't an excuse if one wants to say terrain should matter with a straight face.
Cheap? insulation foam is only sold in palets and it costs over 10$ for one pack.
Nope, those pictures of yours tell enough about the lay of the land to say it's not enough. I get that large tournaments have to supply a lot of tables, but given how cheap it is to make good terrain from insulation foam, filler and bits, it really isn't an excuse if one wants to say terrain should matter with a straight face.
Cheap? insulation foam is only sold in palets and it costs over 10$ for one pack.
Something like 8 euros for two square meters from hardware stores where I live, or free if you just pick it up from some renovation project leftovers / ask a friend / whutever. Cereal boxes, bean can, empty bottles. Things. Creating terrain from literal trash takes nothing but time and some investments in lots of glue, sand and paints compared to plastic or resin sets. It also doesn't mystically disappear between years, so a large organization should be able to provide lots of terrain for their flag ship event, no excuses.
Except not wanting to, which is fine as a decision, but makes for lower quality games in my opinion.
Nope, those pictures of yours tell enough about the lay of the land to say it's not enough. I get that large tournaments have to supply a lot of tables, but given how cheap it is to make good terrain from insulation foam, filler and bits, it really isn't an excuse if one wants to say terrain should matter with a straight face.
Cheap? insulation foam is only sold in palets and it costs over 10$ for one pack.
Something like 8 euros for two square meters from hardware stores where I live, or free if you just pick it up from some renovation project leftovers / ask a friend / whutever. Cereal boxes, bean can, empty bottles. Things. Creating terrain from literal trash takes nothing but time and some investments in lots of glue, sand and paints compared to plastic or resin sets. It also doesn't mystically disappear between years, so a large organization should be able to provide lots of terrain for their flag ship event, no excuses.
Except not wanting to, which is fine as a decision, but makes for lower quality games in my opinion.
You realise that they replaced every terrain piece for this year's event.
You can argue if that was a good or bad idea, but it's still means building 300 plus tables of terrain for the 40k champs alone plus the narrative even of 100+ tables and kill team at x tables. If someone knows the actual numbers feel free to correct this.
Not to mention the stream table's having to be GW only terrain and model's.
Is that all the results for those codexes at LVO? It is an overall analysis, not a prediction of how any specific player will do.
Just a section. All of them would take too long at the moment. There's enough Castellan lists in there that make me question things a bit, but we'd have to analyze those lists more deeply than I was able to.
Chapter Tactics 97 isn't about the LVO. It is a look at cumulative tournament data for the 2nd six months of 2018 from the data available to 40kstats.com. It was released on January 7th, a full month before LVO happened.
You realise that they replaced every terrain piece for this year's event.
You can argue if that was a good or bad idea, but it's still means building 300 plus tables of terrain for the 40k champs alone plus the narrative even of 100+ tables and kill team at x tables. If someone knows the actual numbers feel free to correct this.
Not to mention the stream table's having to be GW only terrain and model's.
I did not know they did so, but that doesn't really mean much. The onus is still on the organizer to get that job done properly beforehand, maybe they'll have more ready for next year. I doubt it, because they've chosen a level they are comfortable with and it does not suit my tastes, but hey ho. At that volume supplying a few tables with only GW stuff is a drop in the bucket.
I agree with Bharring, self-evidently terrain changes units' value and goes to some lenghts in fixing the game. Transports might survive the first turn, some units might not even get to shoot, choke points are a thing tactically and so forth. A very different game from the current slaughterfest.
You realise that they replaced every terrain piece for this year's event.
You can argue if that was a good or bad idea, but it's still means building 300 plus tables of terrain for the 40k champs alone plus the narrative even of 100+ tables and kill team at x tables. If someone knows the actual numbers feel free to correct this.
Not to mention the stream table's having to be GW only terrain and model's.
I did not know they did so, but that doesn't really mean much. The onus is still on the organizer to get that job done properly beforehand, maybe they'll have more ready for next year. I doubt it, because they've chosen a level they are comfortable with and it does not suit my tastes, but hey ho. At that volume supplying a few tables with only GW stuff is a drop in the bucket.
I agree with Bharring, self-evidently terrain changes units' value and goes to some lenghts in fixing the game. Transports might survive the first turn, some units might not even get to shoot, choke points are a thing tactically and so forth. A very different game from the current slaughterfest.
I have also found that playing with the cityfight rules from the latest CA makes for a MUCH, MUCH more enjoyable game, deadliness-wise.
Units that are a bad target for your shooting units actually feel like bad targets and there is much more of an onus on positioning on gunlines, just like there is on melee armies.
It no longer feels like one player has to be constantly calculating their charge odds, perfectly measuring their moves and advances, perfectly spacing their units for maximum models getting to attack in melee, and the other player has to go "ME SHOOT DAT THING, CAN SEE MICROSCOPIC PIECE OF ANTENNA SHOOTING IS FULL EFFECTIVENESS YAY."
Bharring wrote: "Terrain doesnt fix miscosted units."
How overcosted are misssile-Reapers when the largest firing lane on the board is 12"?
That's an extreme example, but would you not say that they were fixed in that example?
Fixing cost is "better", but most people prefer to play with more terrain. And unit value certainly does change based on terrain used.
I find that heavy terrain just makes IG and Drukhari win harder. I guess it does shift the winners around, but the losers are still losers.
I really can't figure how you think heavy terrain makes Drukhari win harder, given that they don't tend to benefit from cover on their vehicles (goes from -1AP to -2AP required to get them to their invulns, and most antitank weapons tend to have -2AP) and their basic poison weapons really dislike when their targets are getting save bonuses because they don't have ap.
Unless you're assuming that the Drukhari that do crazy well on planet bowling ball (skimmer spam) magically morph into the drukhari that like heavy terrain (haemie covens).
IG definitely are the gunline that craps all over the "you're just not using enough terrain lolz" argument. More terrain makes them infinitely stronger because it just increases the odds that you won't be able to hit them and they will be able to hit you with all their LOS ignoring nonsense.
Which is another reason I adore the new beta terrain rules. Having -1 to hit absolutely everything is an actual drawback to using massed arty and plopping it behind a building.
Drukhari are fast and typically suffer no movement penalties. This means they can clear LoS blockers and alpha strike slower armies that take penalties when they move like marines.
Most drukhari I face use the ignore cover coven as we have phased in more and more terrain. It's not helping as Dakka predicted. No, they are still using skimmers. Ignore cover splinter is really good.
IG definitely are the gunline that craps all over the "you're just not using enough terrain lolz" argument. More terrain makes them infinitely stronger because it just increases the odds that you won't be able to hit them and they will be able to hit you with all their LOS ignoring nonsense.
This is assuming the bulk of IG firepower is invested in artillery units, which generally is not the case. If the IG player isnt running an artillery parking lot, they're gonna have to deal with it like everyone else, and artillery parking lot lists have weaknesses of their own. The undercosted Tank Commanders certainly care about LoS.
IG definitely are the gunline that craps all over the "you're just not using enough terrain lolz" argument. More terrain makes them infinitely stronger because it just increases the odds that you won't be able to hit them and they will be able to hit you with all their LOS ignoring nonsense.
This is assuming the bulk of IG firepower is invested in artillery units, which generally is not the case. If the IG player isnt running an artillery parking lot, they're gonna have to deal with it like everyone else, and artillery parking lot lists have weaknesses of their own. The undercosted Tank Commanders certainly care about LoS.
Ah yes because Guard artillery is so bad right now right?
Its interesting that people have brought up the LVO terrain. Most podcasts I listened to throughout the year talked about how much terrain is at the LVO but I have to agree with many posters that the terrain seemed very light. I had predicted to my buddies that we wouldn't be seeing a tau in the top 10 due to how dense the terrain would be. But after seeing pics of the set up I changed my mind. While I still think balance adjustments need to be made I do think that some of the issues with the castalin were even more dramatic due to the light terrain. Take this castalin and mix it with IG good indirect fire and its easy to see how the LVO terrain did play into that list. (once again this post isn't talking about relative strength of any units simply the terrain at the event)
Galas wrote: Vakthathi, you say that like IG isn't cheap enough to spam artillery, hellhounds and infantry meele hordes all of them in the same army.
You can get all of those into one army sure, but most arent loaded to the gills with artillery. Looking at most such "grab bag" lists, what do we generally see? 2-3 arty tanks and some Mortars. Adding gobs more LoS blocking terrain isn't going to make them suddenly better, they can still only engage so many targets and can probably hidden/screened as well as is possible currently. Unless they shift lists to add significantly more artillery at the expense of that other stuff (which, yes, is possible), adding more terrain isn't going to make such lists any more powerful.
More LoS blocking terrain will definitely impact other strong IG units like Tank Commanders and Shadowswords and common allied units like Castellans, so should help reduce damage from those quarters.
IG definitely are the gunline that craps all over the "you're just not using enough terrain lolz" argument. More terrain makes them infinitely stronger because it just increases the odds that you won't be able to hit them and they will be able to hit you with all their LOS ignoring nonsense.
This is assuming the bulk of IG firepower is invested in artillery units, which generally is not the case. If the IG player isnt running an artillery parking lot, they're gonna have to deal with it like everyone else, and artillery parking lot lists have weaknesses of their own. The undercosted Tank Commanders certainly care about LoS.
Ah yes because Guard artillery is so bad right now right?
I'm wondering how my statement that "lots of LoS blocking terrain only helps IG if we're assuming specialized artillery spam builds" becomes interpreted as "Guard artillery is bad".
My point was that most guard lists arent loaded to the gills with LoS ignoring weapons, and that as such lots of LoS blocking terrain will have a notable impact on how they play. If they have a some Mortar units and a couple Basilisks, adding more LoS blocking terrain than is already there isn't going to help out the Guard, it's only if the bulk of the killing power is tied up in such artillery, which it usually is not.
