Heretic Astartes Battalion Detachment SUB-FACTION: Emperor’s Children
HQ 1 Haxamel Bericosian, Conductor of the Dicident Durge
WARLORD: Dark Apostle
TRAITS: Faultless Duellist
PRAYERS: Blissful Devotion, Warp-sight Plea
RELICS: Remnant of the Maraviglia
HQ2 Telemachon Lyras, 4th of the Ezekarion, Lord of the Shrieking Masquerade, The Masked Prince
Lucius the Eternal
HQ3 Teloss the Seeker of Pleasures Sorcerer Force Sword bolter
PSYCHIC POWERS: Prescience, Warptime
Since Dakka's mostly still on about marines, I thought this was interesting. Marines took 5th in this 80 person, 7 round GT. Here's the top 4 lists:
Eh - not really that surprising IMO. Australia has always been "the Upsidedown" of the competitive meta. It's regularly run somewhat counter to the rest of the world in the past (I once heard an Australian explain why this is, but can't recall what he said), and honestly, Demons have been doing well lately anyway.
Harlequins and Daemons are right up there with Marines.
Sororitas are fine, especially with a bunch of Eradicators Retributors.
The Tyranid list is really exciting though!
EDIT: It probably is worth noting that every single one of those lists hard-counters the bejeezus out of Marines. In a way, it's almost proof that marines are dominating so hard, when you can run an almost pure counterpick (making sacrifices elsewhere) and there are so many Marines that you win anyways.
Since Dakka's mostly still on about marines, I thought this was interesting. Marines took 5th in this 80 person, 7 round GT. Here's the top 4 lists:
Eh - not really that surprising IMO. Australia has always been "the Upsidedown" of the competitive meta. It's regularly run somewhat counter to the rest of the world in the past (I once heard an Australian explain why this is, but can't recall what he said), and honestly, Demons have been doing well lately anyway.
While I agree, I don't think Dakka follows the competitive meta enough to really know it's not all marines all the time so I like to try and provide that info. Daemons have been good (as were Death Guard if you followed TJ Lanigan's methods).
The Triple Barbed Heirodule surprised even me though!
I haven't read the point adjustments for them, but it seems to have helped them greatly.
I'll admit, the Death Korps part caught me a bit off guard too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Harlequins and Daemons are right up there with Marines.
Sororitas are fine, especially with a bunch of Eradicators Retributors.
The Tyranid list is really exciting though!
EDIT:
It probably is worth noting that every single one of those lists hard-counters the bejeezus out of Marines. In a way, it's almost proof that marines are dominating so hard, when you can run an almost pure counterpick (making sacrifices elsewhere) and there are so many Marines that you win anyways.
It's definitely important to have an anti-marine element in your list (they are good). There's probably a lot we can tease out of deep diving these though. For instance, I don't think the Harlie-Drukhari person really sacrificed anything.
While I agree, I don't think Dakka follows the competitive meta enough to really know it's not all marines all the time so I like to try and provide that info. Daemons have been good (as were Death Guard if you followed TJ Lanigan's methods).
The Triple Barbed Heirodule surprised even me though!
That list in any other meta would be shocking to me. That said, nothing that comes out of Australia surprises me anymore. Remember a year or two ago when that guy won a GT with a list almost entirely composed of MANZ?
Audustum wrote: Since Dakka's mostly still on about marines, I thought this was interesting. Marines took 5th in this 80 person
The Heiordules are an interesting stand out.
But the rest of the top places? Daemons, Harlies, Sisters with death riders, Marines, Necrons, Daemons, Harlies - if you put a poll up on dakka a week or two back and asked for a list of top factions you'd probably get something like that ... https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795335.page
Deathriders though, interesting touch and two in the top twelve. The sisters have been taking a few high spots with differing allies to fill in the gaps in the book but it was mostly marines early on.
Yes, everyone was surely teching against marines, but that makes them a gatekeeper, not a contender.
In 8th if you didn't bring an answer to knights you were going to be crushed, but the knights themselves weren't really winning much.
Same here with SM.
At least this is a bit better. The knights are a mini faction, and yet they managed to warp the meta that much.
SM are warping the meta, but the marine profile is sported by 14 factions, so it kind of makes sense that you need an answer to them.
Spoletta wrote: So in the end Sororitas and Demons are the tier 1 of the meta right now? (assuming that this isn't just Aussies meta)
Daemons are definitely up there.
The top two sisters lists were both packed with krieg deathriders. Pure sisters were top 20 though, they are pretty strong.
Since Dakka's mostly still on about marines, I thought this was interesting. Marines took 5th in this 80 person, 7 round GT. Here's the top 4 lists:
Eh - not really that surprising IMO. Australia has always been "the Upsidedown" of the competitive meta. It's regularly run somewhat counter to the rest of the world in the past (I once heard an Australian explain why this is, but can't recall what he said), and honestly, Demons have been doing well lately anyway.
Well they do have harlis in top 4. This means that even when put upside down, the army still breaks 9th ed boundries on what is good.
But yeah demons have been doing really well the last few months, no suprise in top 4 for me other then the tyranid list, and that not because I know it should be bad or anything, I just don't know a thing about most FW units. So hard to imagine a list build around 3 big FW units for nids.
the_scotsman wrote: Curious whether the Drukhari list is using the stupidly obvious typo points value from the recent Munitorum Points Adjustment.
For those not in the know, most things in the drukhari list got a 2-3 point drop.
Except for Hellions, which were raised 2 points - from 14pts to 17pt
and for Reavers, which were lowered from 20pts to 10pts.
This is a clear and obvious typo, and we now have a winning tourney list with like 15 Reavers in it.
Yeah, that Reaver gak makes me cringe. Normally I don't fault players in these situations, but... you know what you did there, Aussieman! You know those points are not regular GW wrong, but flat out wrong wrong! And I cringe even more that GW didn't fix that as soon as the community noticed, no need to wait 2 weeks.
So many necrons and harlequins in top 16. more DE then marines too. Ton of sisters too. And to make stuff really fun the top black templar space marine army is running, if I ain't wrong, 0 eradicators.
So a breakdown of the top 16:
1st: Chaos Soup (Daemons + Chaos Space Marines)
2nd: Eldar Soup (Harlequins + Dark Eldar)
3rd: Imperial Soup (Sisters + Death Korps of Krieg)
4th: Tyranids
5th: Space Marines
6th: Necrons
7th: Chaos Daemons
8th: Eldar Soup (Harlequins + Eldar)
9th: Chaos Daemons
10th: Necrons
11th: Imperial Soup (Sisters + Death Korps of Krieg)
12th: Necrons
13th: Dark Eldar
14th: Necrons
15th: Sisters
16th: Deathwatch
A lot of these lists have some unusual quirks to what they've included. More than likely, a strong focus on staying and contesting objectives over firepower. Also, a lot of Daemons and Necrons here.
Darsath wrote: Does anyone have a breakdown of the top 16 of the event? Thanks.
Interesting to see the variation in the top 16, not just one theme to each faction list.
Sisters are all pretty similar but they don't have the options to play with. Crons and daemons mix things up a lot more though, as do the allied elements of the harlies lists.
Spoiler:
1) Slaanesh daemons and marines
2) Harlies supported by DE reavers
3) 2/3rds sisters with a lot of multimeltas, 1/3rd forgeworld deathriders
4) Nids with three Barbed Heiordules
5) Assault focussed Black templars
6) Necrons led by the Silent King
7) Daemons, mostly small nurgle units led by three greater daemons and be'lakor
8) Harlies with a focus on skyweavers and allied shining spears
9) Daemons, four greater daemons and a mix of every god in support
10) Necrons, two ctan shards, wraith, scarabs, destroyers
11) Sisters and krieg, much the same as 2nd place.
12) Vehicle heavy Crons - stalkers, arks, and barges with support
13) Dark Eldar, mix of units
14) Crons, Tesseract vault and a fair bit of heavy support
15) Sisters, standard mix of valorous infantry and bloody rose assault units
16) Deathwatch primaris
I want to point out that it's not really a Death Korps list at all; it's Sisters with a bunch of Death Riders. They've been a great unit for Death Korps since the start of 8th, but I have my doubts about the viability of a pure Death Korps list.
Triple Barbed Hierodule doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The Hierodules got a huge boost in the FW update. The Barbed in particular, as Jormungandr, enjoys a 1+ armor save. General consensus over in Tactics is that both flavors of Hierodule and the Dimachaeron are now the best monstrous creatures available to the army.
As Jormungandr, with a Malanthrope and Maleceptor nearby, three Barbed Hierodules represent 54 wounds at T8/1+ with -1 to hit and -1 to wound. That's a lot to chew through.
Yeah, that Reaver gak makes me cringe. Normally I don't fault players in these situations, but... you know what you did there, Aussieman! You know those points are not regular GW wrong, but flat out wrong wrong! And I cringe even more that GW didn't fix that as soon as the community noticed, no need to wait 2 weeks.
So you're saying it doesn't count because you don't agree with GW?
Yeah, that Reaver gak makes me cringe. Normally I don't fault players in these situations, but... you know what you did there, Aussieman! You know those points are not regular GW wrong, but flat out wrong wrong! And I cringe even more that GW didn't fix that as soon as the community noticed, no need to wait 2 weeks.
So you're saying it doesn't count because you don't agree with GW?
Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?
To say that you'd have to argue that points are primarily a balancing force rather than a framework for putting your dudes on the table and I'm not sure GW has ever had rules robust enough to support that view.
Again, we went through this before though with Obliterators. It was literally a typo, and I think most tournaments elected to use the old points values. There is a point where TOs should be intervening and forging their own way (a la ITC in 7th). This is that point. I agree, points don't magically give us shangri la balance but just like we generally agree on rules of engagement when we play games, we should think of that same framework extending to gross rule errors, especially in the case of tournaments.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Again, we went through this before though with Obliterators. It was literally a typo, and I think most tournaments elected to use the old points values. There is a point where TOs should be intervening and forging their own way (a la ITC in 7th). This is that point. I agree, points don't magically give us shangri la balance but just like we generally agree on rules of engagement when we play games, we should think of that same framework extending to gross rule errors, especially in the case of tournaments.
At that point, do we expect TOs to alter anything and everything we don't like, that we feel is unfair, or that seems like it could be a typo? How does anybody build a tournament list if there isn't a consensus on what is or isn't an 'obvious' mistake?
Yeah, that Reaver gak makes me cringe. Normally I don't fault players in these situations, but... you know what you did there, Aussieman! You know those points are not regular GW wrong, but flat out wrong wrong! And I cringe even more that GW didn't fix that as soon as the community noticed, no need to wait 2 weeks.
So you're saying it doesn't count because you don't agree with GW?
Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?
Its what gw has currently costed them at, so for the moment thats their pts.
So apart from the codices and list builds that surprise some people of the other side of the world, is there nothing that strike you in these lists ?
Massive Forgewold usage maybe ?
Tyranid army, three Hierodules costing 140 € / 175 $ each + a Malanthrope at 72 € / 90 $ , totalling 492 € / 615 $ worth of FW models on top an otherwise not so small army of regular plastic tyranids.
Then...
38 Death Korps riders in the Astra Militarum + Sisters list. That's 836 € / 1026 $ worth of models right there.
Oh yeah Forgeworld entries in the 9th edition book are totally balanced, they promised you. GW rules team had taken over the matter and straightened all the wonky things. They are so well balanced that some top players spend nearly a grand for a bunch models, spamming those very units, that when FW codex's released, were already seen as "powerful". And they win. 9th edition, an edition that's perfect for everyone. FW book and miniatures usage are perfectly legit, balanced and good for the health of the game as a whole, right ? (But you would be better to have deep pockets). And you'd be better to have no fear for these entries to be phased out, like those who were removed from the 8th edition Imperial Armour a few months ago...
Ravajaxe wrote: So apart from the codices and list builds that surprise some people of the other side of the world, is there nothing that strike you in these lists ?
Massive Forgewold usage maybe ?
Tyranid army, three Hierodules costing 140 € / 175 $ each + a Malanthrope at 72 € / 90 $ , totalling 492 € / 615 $ worth of FW models on top an otherwise not so small army of regular plastic tyranids.
Then...
36 Death Korps riders in the Astra Militarum + Sisters list. That's 792 € / 972 $ worth of models right there.
Oh yeah Forgeworld entries in the 9th edition book are totally balanced, they promised you. GW rules team had taken over the matter and straightened all the wonky things. They are so well balanced that some top players spend nearly a grand for a bunch models, spamming those very units, that when FW codex's released, were already seen as "powerful". And they win. 9th edition, an edition that's perfect for everyone. FW book and miniatures usage are perfectly legit, balanced and good for the health of the game as a whole, right ? (But you would be better to have deep pockets). And you'd be better to have no fear for these entries to be phased out, like those who were removed from the 8th edition Imperial Armour a few months ago...
Perhaps it's more of a case of the FW stuff is new, sometimes it's more recent by a year or more compared to the rest of a codex that could be massively out of date.
It seems like many of the new and up to date codices aren't really using much of the FW stuff, marines, sisters and well that's it so far.
I'd be willing to bet as the books get updated less of the FW stuff will see attention outside of niche lists/tactics. Compare the Heirodules we saw in 3rd place vs Fexes. The fexes feel like they should fill the same slot but are also lacking. So it's less a case of FWOP, but more of a case of the rest of the books have to catch up.
Triple Hierodule is certainly interesting - but as some have said perhaps not so surprising.
The rest just seem like variants (well, 10 point Reaver spam isn't that interesting) on themes which are reasonably well worn at this point.
If I was patient it might be interesting to do some stats on the whole roster. Marines seem under represented compared to their usual demographic dominance at other events - which might impact both the specific tournament meta and their placing. But I've not clicked every list, so could be wrong on that fact. Which could be a meta shift in itself.
Go take a look at the Aus prices for most of the primaris kits especially the stuff that's new and I think you'll see a part of why marines in Aus arn't popular $100 per intercessor squad $70 per ATV.
Atleast the older factions you have half a chancw of second hand sales and time to build the collection.
Ice_can wrote: Go take a look at the Aus prices for most of the primaris kits especially the stuff that's new and I think you'll see a part of why marines in Aus arn't popular $100 per intercessor squad $70 per ATV...
For clarity: That's $100 AUS for ten Intercessors, which is about $80 US, which is a 33% Australia tax, which is still silly.
Darsath wrote: I'm still curious as to why so many Necron players are running Annihilation Barges.
*shrug*
I think of it as a Dreadnought that can fly, heal, and take melta on 4s with a 5++ for only 130 points. Basic Eradicators do 6.6 to a dreadnought ( including -1D ) and 4.6 to this.
They're probably Mephrit so that means +3", +1AP under half, +1AP on 6s to wound, and ignore cover. Then you have tesla arcing and the 3MW Mephrit strat.
So they drop some ok shooting and one of them will drop up to 6MW in that area. Though 2 CP...so...I dunno.
EDIT: now that I look at a list it is like a monster mash. The barge is the least concerning target while still durable and it bring along good chaff clearing.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Again, we went through this before though with Obliterators. It was literally a typo, and I think most tournaments elected to use the old points values. There is a point where TOs should be intervening and forging their own way (a la ITC in 7th). This is that point. I agree, points don't magically give us shangri la balance but just like we generally agree on rules of engagement when we play games, we should think of that same framework extending to gross rule errors, especially in the case of tournaments.
At that point, do we expect TOs to alter anything and everything we don't like, that we feel is unfair, or that seems like it could be a typo? How does anybody build a tournament list if there isn't a consensus on what is or isn't an 'obvious' mistake?
There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it"...
Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), for the curious.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.
The issue here is when is this info going to be disseminated? Players have the documents from GW and are building lists based on it. If they show up to an event and only then find out that the TO has changed something that's a raw deal. Even if the TO send out a package of rules two weeks before an event that kind of change can leave a player scrambling to track down models (sometimes even an entirely new faction) to compete in the event.
Unless this is an ITC level competitive scene wide thing it just doesn't work that well.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: ...There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it"...
Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), for the curious.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.
The issue here is when is this info going to be disseminated? Players have the documents from GW and are building lists based on it. If they show up to an event and only then find out that the TO has changed something that's a raw deal. Even if the TO send out a package of rules two weeks before an event that kind of change can leave a player scrambling to track down models (sometimes even an entirely new faction) to compete in the event.
Unless this is an ITC level competitive scene wide thing it just doesn't work that well.
I mean, not really... tournaments have to be organized, it's not like 30 people spontaneously turn up at an LGS on the day of and magically have a tournament. I have never been part of a tournament that doesn't give any sort of FAQ or at least set of rules. In this day and age, it's easier than ever.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: I mean, not really... tournaments have to be organized, it's not like 30 people spontaneously turn up at an LGS on the day of and magically have a tournament. I have never been part of a tournament that doesn't give any sort of FAQ or at least set of rules. In this day and age, it's easier than ever.
That's not what I said the issue was. The issue is how fast can we expect them to react to an 'incorrect' ruling by GW and does that give enough time for players to react and change their lists to meet these new unofficial changes to the game? It's one thing to run your own mission pack and to exclude content that dropped a few days before the event but rather another to start taking a red pen to GWs official rules.
For an obvious typo? The day of/the day after the typo hits does not seem unreasonable to me. I know if I am running an upcoming tournament and any sort of FAQ/errata drops I am on it within the hour.
NinthMusketeer wrote: For an obvious typo? The day of/the day after the typo hits does not seem unreasonable to me. I know if I am running an upcoming tournament and any sort of FAQ/errata drops I am on it within the hour.
That requires you (or the organizing committee) to agree that it's an obvious typo. Also, what happens if GW comes out and says this is 100% intentional?
The issue here is when is this info going to be disseminated? Players have the documents from GW and are building lists based on it. If they show up to an event and only then find out that the TO has changed something that's a raw deal. Even if the TO send out a package of rules two weeks before an event that kind of change can leave a player scrambling to track down models (sometimes even an entirely new faction) to compete in the event.
Unless this is an ITC level competitive scene wide thing it just doesn't work that well.
Agreed on the issue of TOs having to update things like this. It's hard enough getting players to read the tournament pack once, let alone read any late updates. There's only so much we can reasonably ask of TOs. Adjusting points is probably a step too far.
As for implications for the meta, this isn't just Australia, it's Western Australia during a crisis where we've shut our borders and demand travelers spend 2 weeks in quarantine. Our player base is, in my opinion, too small to truly reflect the meta at large. Especially when you consider how few of us here are truly competitive players.
I didn't attend the event for several reasons. If I had, I'd have taken Dark Angels. So there's one less marine player for you....
Canadian 5th wrote: ...That requires you (or the organizing committee) to agree that it's an obvious typo. Also, what happens if GW comes out and says this is 100% intentional?
What's the difference between patching what you (the TO) see as an obvious typo, and, say, doing your own mission pack instead of the official GW missions? Plenty of people were happy to play at ITC events in 8th with missions GW didn't write.
AnomanderRake wrote: What's the difference between patching what you (the TO) see as an obvious typo, and, say, doing your own mission pack instead of the official GW missions? Plenty of people were happy to play at ITC events in 8th with missions GW didn't write.
The mission pack doesn't invalidate your army list because you didn't read it fully.
AnomanderRake wrote: What's the difference between patching what you (the TO) see as an obvious typo, and, say, doing your own mission pack instead of the official GW missions? Plenty of people were happy to play at ITC events in 8th with missions GW didn't write.
The mission pack doesn't invalidate your army list because you didn't read it fully.
And not reading the mission pack fully doesn't present a handicap that makes it more likely you'll get trounced by the people who did read the mission pack? Do you normally not read the missions before going to an event?
AnomanderRake wrote: And not reading the mission pack fully doesn't present a handicap that makes it more likely you'll get trounced by the people who did read the mission pack? Do you normally not read the missions before going to an event?
Let's say it's an event run by a specific group and you know from a friend they haven't changed the missions or scoring you could easily miss that detail and try to register an illegal list.
Your friend paid enough attention to the tournament packet to know they were using the official missions/scoring but not enough to notice they were using their own FAQ? Are you assuming "what missions we're using" is always going to be up-front information but "any other house rules for the tournament" is always going to be buried in fine print?
And "try and register an illegal list"? Are you trying to send your list to the TO five minutes before the event, or is the TO not telling you your list is illegal until five minutes before the event?
That kind of stuff will always be a balancing act. On the one hand you might have legitimate mistakes or errors that need to be corrected by the TO's, on the other hand you get the terrible WTC FAQ which straight up just changes rules because of.... reasons?
Bosskelot wrote: That kind of stuff will always be a balancing act. On the one hand you might have legitimate mistakes or errors that need to be corrected by the TO's, on the other hand you get the terrible WTC FAQ which straight up just changes rules because of.... reasons?
No different than the entirety of the US and large parts of the 40K community elsewhere playing 8th Edition with all kinds of houserules like 1st-floor ruins blocking line of sight or "touching = within" or turning first blood into first strike or whatever.
Some of those arbitrary house-rules still kick around in 9th for most tournaments (as far as they exist), such as adding rules that specify which bases models have to be on, despite no GW rule requiring anything in this regard.
I haven't seen a 40K tournament in over a decade or two that played the game without "changing rules because of ... reasons?".
If we want to be 100% technical on this, ALL the events run until now were using at least one house rule.
In no part of GW's rules there is an explanation of which tie breaker to choose in an event when 2 players end with the same amount of wins.
All events tally up the victory points of the games and use that as a tie breaker, but that is 100% an house rule.
ITC used to do that, so we can kind of defaulted on it, even if it is something that warps the meta and benefits some factions compared to other possible tie breakers.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Are you saying that 10ppm is accurate to represent current Reaver rules?
To say that you'd have to argue that points are primarily a balancing force rather than a framework for putting your dudes on the table and I'm not sure GW has ever had rules robust enough to support that view.
No you don't. You just have to show that points are used as a balancing factor, not that it's their primary purpose. We can pretty easily see they are used for this purpose by referring to the many points changes GW made for balance reasons in CA during 8th edition.
Canadian 5th wrote:
Gene St. Ealer wrote: I mean, not really... tournaments have to be organized, it's not like 30 people spontaneously turn up at an LGS on the day of and magically have a tournament. I have never been part of a tournament that doesn't give any sort of FAQ or at least set of rules. In this day and age, it's easier than ever.
That's not what I said the issue was. The issue is how fast can we expect them to react to an 'incorrect' ruling by GW and does that give enough time for players to react and change their lists to meet these new unofficial changes to the game? It's one thing to run your own mission pack and to exclude content that dropped a few days before the event but rather another to start taking a red pen to GWs official rules.
Apparently at least one player had enough time to react to this change by cramming 21 Reavers into his list. Everyone at the tournament was using the new CA points costs, so presumably everyone was able to react in time to those changes. For the record, the various DE groups I know of reacted to this within about 30 minutes of the changes being published. It's not like it was some hidden secret uncovered at the last moment before the tournament. Bespoke tournament mission packs and painting guidelines/rules are common enough as well. There's absolutely no issue with a TO from a logistical or gaming POV deciding to make adjustments to the game if they so wish. More than one did so with Obliterators, IIRC, and that obvious typo was - shock, horror! - fixed in exactly the way everyone predicted when GW eventually got around to it. TOs are basically the dictators of their own tournament and they're entirely within their rights to make any ruling they want. Running the tournament gives them the right to alter whatever they want. If they go too far they'll probably find themselves with no players but there's nothing stopping them making these decisions. It's entirely a matter of opinion as to whether they should have made the change to Reaver points or not. Given how successful one DE army was that was taking advantage of this update, maybe they made the wrong call?
10ppm Reavers is an obvious typo, those bikers are enhanced Wyches and Wyches cost 10ppm.
It reminds me on when SW had Obj Sec on everything, someone spotted the loophole and got great results at some tournament, and some people didn't realize (or want to admit) that was clearly a mistake. Which was in fact fixed almost immediately.
Its only a game so wouldn't go nuts - but it is easy for a tournament to go "this is clearly a typo, any lists involving this unit must pay X points". But the organiser has to be aware of the issue and they may not have been (or not especially cared in any case).
The "how do you know" is the sort of mentality that tried to maintain GSC Neophytes were 55 points, because... well its in Chapter Approved and "maybe its intentional". Obvious mistakes are obvious.
There's an old canard about defining pornography (maybe apocryphal, but I think by a Supreme Court justice): "I know it when I see it". The whole point of TOs is to be that "I know it when I see it" arbiter. Could they get it wrong? Yeah. Is it better than the system of GW's lips to god's ears? Also yeah.
I can give you a few examples of stuff being costed, over costed to be precise, and not being change by GW in a FAQ/CA/Errata year after year, sometimes it hit entire armies. So the the whole argument of it is clearly a typo, and there for we should use some other value, pulled out of thin air seems one that doesn't have much support historically. Does GW not giving all loyalist marines 2W is a type too, or should those that don't have 2W be made cheaper till they get their +1W?
rules and laws don't stop to work, just because they are stupid and people don't like them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Its only a game so wouldn't go nuts - but it is easy for a tournament to go "this is clearly a typo, any lists involving this unit must pay X points". But the organiser has to be aware of the issue and they may not have been (or not especially cared in any case).
The "how do you know" is the sort of mentality that tried to maintain GSC Neophytes were 55 points, because... well its in Chapter Approved and "maybe its intentional". Obvious mistakes are obvious.
If it was a type, then how long would it take GW to change the entry in a FAQ? Lets say three days, one day to inform boss about the error, one day for the boss to give order to fix it, and one day to implement the change. If GW really felt it was an error, they work very fast. Sometimes they change books, before they even get to the stores like the old space wolf codex. They even have a facebook and twitter, it would take minutes for someone to write that the point cost is different.
For the DE Reaver points, they may just not be bothering because the new codex is due out any minute now, which will supercede the current points and will presumably(!) be correct.
Crispy78 wrote: For the DE Reaver points, they may just not be bothering because the new codex is due out any minute now, which will supercede the current points and will presumably(!) be correct.
Crispy78 wrote: For the DE Reaver points, they may just not be bothering because the new codex is due out any minute now, which will supercede the current points and will presumably(!) be correct.
March is hardly "any minute now," dude.
It is back to March now? I hadn't heard March, I thought they were due January but I imagine were delayed because Death Guard was delayed. Didn't know any time-frame beyond that had been mentioned.
Australia has always had a weird meta in every game. like I don't think they ever follow the trend that everyone else does across the world. Unfortunately that also means you can easily discount anything they do because it doesn't follow the trends elsewhere
I don't think this is super surprising personally. We know quins, demon's and sisters have joined the marines at the top table. The new codex tuned marines down to a much better level, they still got 5th in a meta where everyone is expecting to play them and has come equipped to do so. The fact that they are still near the top despite others gearing up for them suggests they're not going anywhere, especially when deathguard are coming and making damage 2 weapons much less attractive which could help marines in turn.
To everyone crying about FW making tyranids good, just keep walking.
Nids have always had the short straw and even more so with their FW units.
They have always been giant resin paper weights that instantly handicap you in tournaments.
It’s about time people got to use them.
Not sure it will be useful - but thought I'd break the lists down by faction, using the most points invested. Admittedly some of this might be a push - if you have say 1100 points of Harlequins and 900 CWE, I've said its a Harlequin list. 1100 odd points of Daemons+Magnus, Ahriman and some cultists=Daemons list. This isn't that common but it means the winning list is just Daemons in this list, the second Harlequins etc etc.
Factions Lists
Marines 17
Daemons 8
Necrons 8
Custodes 7
Sisters 6
Tau 5
Harlequins 4
Tyranids 4
IG 4
Orks 3
Dark Eldar 2
Death Guard 2
CWE 2
CSM 2
GSC 2
Chaos Knights 1
Ad Mech 1
Thousand Sons 1
Grey Knights 1
Of the 17 Marines you had:
Black Templar 2
Death Watch 3
Space Wolves 2
White Scars 2
Dark Angels 3
Raven Guard 1
Blood Angels 2
Salamanders 1
Imperial Fists 1
Ultramarines are missing, which is a bit strange as I think they were definitely in there. I guess they may have appeared in soups and were the smaller detachment.
Difficult to say what things would look like - but I feel the few 9th tournaments in Europe and the US have seen maybe twice the number of Marine lists, which obviously increases both the odds of them placing, and their impact on the meta as a whole.
SM making up a fifth of the entries is really nice to see actually. Considering they are the poster boys and the most-played faction, a fifth is really good representation I think. Also pleased to see that no SM sub-faction seems to be overly represented either.
Would be nice if the faction break down was like this more often.
I see 5 Tau players attending. Do we know if they used the "Montka enables to fallback and shoot" interpretation, or if they went with the "nope, montka doesn't do that" interpretation ?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How much are we accepting tournament results during COVID era out of curiosity?
We shouldn't accept them at all. Especially if those results come from Down Under.
Australia is weird, but not outside the scope of the game. COVID tournaments are interesting, but not definitive. Are all the all-star marine players laying low while others do not? No idea. I would imagine everything is affected proportionally, but you never know. The LVO NOpen should be a fun watch regardless.
I’ll be honest, I’ve never really seen a difference in meta before.
Jumping back to leafblower, lash-oblit, even rhino rush etc, it’s always been used around the world.
I honestly never really knew this was a thing as I’ve only ever seen people in tournaments run meta lists.
Jackal90 wrote: I’ll be honest, I’ve never really seen a difference in meta before.
Jumping back to leafblower, lash-oblit, even rhino rush etc, it’s always been used around the world.
I honestly never really knew this was a thing as I’ve only ever seen people in tournaments run meta lists.
In the middle of 8th where CW and Knights ran roughshod there was definitely an element of meta lists.
These days I'm quite surprised at the variety of lists.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How much are we accepting tournament results during COVID era out of curiosity?
Looks like it was a genuine tournament with decent attendance so the results are probably as valid as at non-Covid times. The difficulty is in determining how representative of the game as a whole these results are. Without more tournaments to compare with it's difficult to be too defnitive.
To say that you'd have to argue that points are primarily a balancing force rather than a framework for putting your dudes on the table and I'm not sure GW has ever had rules robust enough to support that view.
Whether or not it's by intent it still affects the balance of the game pretty dramatically, smart guy.
Hecaton wrote: Whether or not it's by intent it still affects the balance of the game pretty dramatically, smart guy.
Obviously, but points aren't primarily a balancing factor and if you look at the history of the game they've never done a good job at creating balance. Expecting that now is madness even if GW is open to tweaking points here and there based on tournament results.
Obviously, but points aren't primarily a balancing factor and if you look at the history of the game they've never done a good job at creating balance. Expecting that now is madness even if GW is open to tweaking points here and there based on tournament results.
You're not making sense. Whether or not the design team intends for points to be a balancing factor, the points costs of things will have a dramatic impact on the balance of the game.
We shouldn't accept them at all. Especially if those results come from Down Under.
And especially not when the results don't demonstrate Space Marine superiority because that would damage the narrative.
Well to be honest I NEVER use tournaments data to confirm/damage the narrative. Those data are referred to lists that most of the players will never see in real life, especially non marines lists.
We shouldn't accept them at all. Especially if those results come from Down Under.
And especially not when the results don't demonstrate Space Marine superiority because that would damage the narrative.
Well to be honest I NEVER use tournaments data to confirm/damage the narrative. Those data are referred to lists that most of the players will never see in real life, especially non marines lists.
That may have been true in 7th, but the lists here are mostly accessible (barring the FW heavy). The winning list is daemonettes and some csm basically.
Lists with 12+ Mortifiers and/or 3x5 Melta Retributors (you need 6 box to get 12 MM), 15+ Meganobz, 12 ork buggies, 18 Skyweavers are not common at all. Not even the Goff greentide is actually that common. All those lists are based on spamming an overperforming unit or two, which is something the majority of the player base avoids because it it gets nerfed basically the entire list become unplayable.
Daemonettes are Slaanesh. I think I've played two or three times against a Slaanesh based army in 20+ years of 40k.
During 8th for some people SM couldn't live without the loyal32 but out of 20+ SM players I regularly face not a single one actually bought the AM dudes and the AM codex to be more competitive. The only guy who fielded the loyal32 + SM already had an AM army. And I've also never seen a Castellan in real life.
Most competitive ork list and the end of 8th was based around 100-150 Gretchins, 10 Flash Gitz and 12+ Smasha Gunz. Of course it has never been real outside a few big events. What about the 5 Stormravens?
My countries and Russian recasters were selling too many smash guns for the ork list to not have been popular. They were so popular that Kromlech, started doing their own, and they only do stuff which really sells.
I have never seen a 5 SR list, but I saw 3 eldar lists with more then 3 flyers in 8th ed.
Same with harli 9th ed list, the VH sob list. oddly enough my store, the only difference I got to expiriance is the lack of bladeguard bombs and eradictors, because of how few indomitus we got. But MM attack bikes and Vanvets are very popular.
No you don't. You just have to show that points are used as a balancing factor, not that it's their primary purpose. We can pretty easily see they are used for this purpose by referring to the many points changes GW made for balance reasons in CA during 8th edition.
Balance reasons? No they didn't. They did to keep their changing imbalance stratagem. Points are rather GW's method for creating imbalance. GW's goal is not balance but changing imbalance. They want players to stop using old models and buy new ones constantly for £££££££. Getting stuff to balance is nightmare scenario for GW.
Blackie wrote: Lists with 12+ Mortifiers and/or 3x5 Melta Retributors (you need 6 box to get 12 MM), 15+ Meganobz, 12 ork buggies, 18 Skyweavers are not common at all. Not even the Goff greentide is actually that common. All those lists are based on spamming an overperforming unit or two, which is something the majority of the player base avoids because it it gets nerfed basically the entire list become unplayable.
Daemonettes are Slaanesh. I think I've played two or three times against a Slaanesh based army in 20+ years of 40k.
During 8th for some people SM couldn't live without the loyal32 but out of 20+ SM players I regularly face not a single one actually bought the AM dudes and the AM codex to be more competitive. The only guy who fielded the loyal32 + SM already had an AM army. And I've also never seen a Castellan in real life.
Most competitive ork list and the end of 8th was based around 100-150 Gretchins, 10 Flash Gitz and 12+ Smasha Gunz. Of course it has never been real outside a few big events. What about the 5 Stormravens?
I never played Necrons in my area until I got into them - that doesn't mean much for accessibility though.
There's nothing to the #1 Harlie/DE list, #5 is more than half old marines, #6 is silent king and indomitus boxes, #7 is 3 greater daemons and simple daemon units (no expensive beast of nurgle spam), #8 is harlies and shining spears, #9 is 4 greater daemons and basic daemons, #10 is skorpekhs, scarabs, and wraiths.
Even if you only had two greater daemons, or half as many wraiths, or w/e you can still easy come close to these lists without a lot of effort.
Blackie wrote: Lists with 12+ Mortifiers and/or 3x5 Melta Retributors (you need 6 box to get 12 MM), 15+ Meganobz, 12 ork buggies, 18 Skyweavers are not common at all. Not even the Goff greentide is actually that common. All those lists are based on spamming an overperforming unit or two, which is something the majority of the player base avoids because it it gets nerfed basically the entire list become unplayable.
Daemonettes are Slaanesh. I think I've played two or three times against a Slaanesh based army in 20+ years of 40k.
During 8th for some people SM couldn't live without the loyal32 but out of 20+ SM players I regularly face not a single one actually bought the AM dudes and the AM codex to be more competitive. The only guy who fielded the loyal32 + SM already had an AM army. And I've also never seen a Castellan in real life.
Most competitive ork list and the end of 8th was based around 100-150 Gretchins, 10 Flash Gitz and 12+ Smasha Gunz. Of course it has never been real outside a few big events. What about the 5 Stormravens?
Go look at tournament lists from actual 9th edition tournaments rather than lists from a dead edition if you want to make this argument.
Go look at tournament lists from actual 9th edition tournaments rather than lists from a dead edition if you want to make this argument.
My argument was about 40k in general, not specifically about 9th edition of 40k. Some of the examples I made were actually referred to 9th edition tournament lists.
My point is that tournament lists aren't common in real metas. I know that someone always play cut-throat 40k, but it's not the norm.
Therefore data aren't information, they need some analysis (this is always true, not only for 40k).
I never played Necrons in my area until I got into them - that doesn't mean much for accessibility though.
If a list, including a necron one, is based around spamming a few units it's not really accessible unless the whole lot comes very cheap (like multiple Indomitus halves). Only people with extremely large armies could play them or eventually meta chasers. It's not likely to face one or more of those lists regularly. Most of the hobbists avoid building their armies around skew lists as they know that a single turn of FAQ could invalidate their entire army.
Hmmm. Forgeworld and Soup represent reasonable bars for a substantial proportion of the playerbase.
I'm not convinced about anything else. I tend to think most new collectors don't like spamming the same thing - but if it remains the best in faction unit, they tend towards acquiring it over time. (I realise there are also people who bought an army of ebay back in 2014 and will never ever add to it, but still.)
I can't say for 9th cos Covid, but for 8th my local store had a relatively soft meta compared with 7th (or at least before Marines 2.0 - and even then we didn't have chaplain dreads and flamer centurions), because "the hotness" tended to keep changing, so people couldn't just tailor their purchases. The winter of 2018 was however probably the worst, because Knights started to appear everywhere, and it was a single kit you could pick up in the store and theoretically play with the next day.
I watched some of the Adelaide open streams over the weekend.
Some more interesting results from down under. The commentators did mention in passing that a couple of the top marine players couldn't make it. I'm assuming, the new deathguard codex wasn't allowed too.
But the results do seem to show a pretty good balance at the sharp end of the competitive scene, at least in Australia.
In the top 10 were chaos soup lists favouring spikey marines that finished 1&2, grey knights in third, black templars, deathskull orks, Harlequins, sisters, aeldari soup, custodes and drukhari.
Obviously the pandemic is going to have some effect on attendance but it does show a great spread of factions competing for honours.
I see 5 Tau players attended the event. Do we know if they used the "Montka enables to fallback and shoot" interpretation, or if they went with the "nope, montka doesn't do that" interpretation ?
Go look at tournament lists from actual 9th edition tournaments rather than lists from a dead edition if you want to make this argument.
My argument was about 40k in general, not specifically about 9th edition of 40k. Some of the examples I made were actually referred to 9th edition tournament lists.
My point is that tournament lists aren't common in real metas. I know that someone always play cut-throat 40k, but it's not the norm.
Therefore data aren't information, they need some analysis (this is always true, not only for 40k).
I never played Necrons in my area until I got into them - that doesn't mean much for accessibility though.
If a list, including a necron one, is based around spamming a few units it's not really accessible unless the whole lot comes very cheap (like multiple Indomitus halves). Only people with extremely large armies could play them or eventually meta chasers. It's not likely to face one or more of those lists regularly. Most of the hobbists avoid building their armies around skew lists as they know that a single turn of FAQ could invalidate their entire army.
I think all metas are "real" if there are players in them. The most important meta, though, is the meta that you belong to. You can have two disconnected metas in the same city, but at the same time you can have metas influencing each other around the world through social media.
I am in two "metas" as I work in one city and live in another while playing 40K in both. One meta is broadly more competitive than the other, but I absolutely see "meta-chasers" in both. Local metas can certainly vary from the "40KGT tourney Meta," but things can certainly port over.
All that to say it is comforting to dismiss tournament data that does not agree with our point of view. It might even be valid to dismiss such data, but its equally likely that its not a good practice.
addnid wrote: I see 5 Tau players attended the event. Do we know if they used the "Montka enables to fallback and shoot" interpretation, or if they went with the "nope, montka doesn't do that" interpretation ?
I'm not sure, tau weren't on stream when I watched so it didn't come up.
If a list, including a necron one, is based around spamming a few units it's not really accessible unless the whole lot comes very cheap (like multiple Indomitus halves). Only people with extremely large armies could play them or eventually meta chasers. It's not likely to face one or more of those lists regularly.
?? Other than FW, almost everything is readily available just by walking into your local shop (GW or independent). It's either on the shelf, or they can order it. Or you can order virtually anything on-line through GW, Amazon, Ebay, etc
The major hiccups here is;
A) GW is out of stock atm - can't ship what's not in the warehouse....
B) FW prices.
C) The big one, GW has only released the model in 1 set & hasn't released the solo kit yet (like Eradicators). You want them atm, off to Ebay or etc with you.
But something like me making 3 squadrons of Necron Tomb Blades? Not a problem. Doesn't require an existing extremely large army. Just the desire to field the units, $, and - in the case of my 3rd squad - a bit of patience as I had to wait for a re-stock.
Blackie wrote: Most of the hobbists avoid building their armies around skew lists as they know that a single turn of FAQ could invalidate their entire army.
Nah, that's how we develop those extremely large armies. You buy something, GW nukes it. So you buy the next thing. And it gets wrecked. So you buy a 3rd thing.... A few cycles of this & you've ended up with a large collection & can toggle between units depending upon what's currently good/bad.
How does it work when you don't like the rest of the stuff your army has. For example I like how termintor models look, I don't like power armoured ones. If GW decides to ,as you said it, nuke termintor class models, even if I had money, I would not go out and buy 6-9 box of strikes just because they are better.
If a list, including a necron one, is based around spamming a few units it's not really accessible unless the whole lot comes very cheap (like multiple Indomitus halves). Only people with extremely large armies could play them or eventually meta chasers. It's not likely to face one or more of those lists regularly.
?? Other than FW, almost everything is readily available just by walking into your local shop (GW or independent). It's either on the shelf, or they can order it. Or you can order virtually anything on-line through GW, Amazon, Ebay, etc
The major hiccups here is;
A) GW is out of stock atm - can't ship what's not in the warehouse....
B) FW prices.
C) The big one, GW has only released the model in 1 set & hasn't released the solo kit yet (like Eradicators). You want them atm, off to Ebay or etc with you.
But something like me making 3 squadrons of Necron Tomb Blades? Not a problem. Doesn't require an existing extremely large army. Just the desire to field the units, $, and - in the case of my 3rd squad - a bit of patience as I had to wait for a re-stock.
Blackie wrote: Most of the hobbists avoid building their armies around skew lists as they know that a single turn of FAQ could invalidate their entire army.
Nah, that's how we develop those extremely large armies. You buy something, GW nukes it. So you buy the next thing. And it gets wrecked. So you buy a 3rd thing.... A few cycles of this & you've ended up with a large collection & can toggle between units depending upon what's currently good/bad.
Yeah everything is available at the store but not all hobbists are willing to collect armies of 7000 points or more. Now I see lists that require to buy 5 boxes of Retributors and 6 boxes of Mortifiers. Combined to all the other necessary stuff to make a reasonably working Adepta Sororitas collection that's a huge investment. Same with 5 boxes of Meganobz or 12 ork buggies. Most of the players will never reach that numbers for a single unit, unless maybe they're Harlequins and don't have much choice.
Some prefer to start different projects, maybe even different games. Not many people actually have "extremely large armies".
I remember during 7th edition when I had 10-12k of orks I couldn't still field all the possible most competitive ork builds, as I didn't have 5 Battlewagons ("just 3") or 30+ bikes ("just" 20ish). In 8th I couldn't field 90-120 gretchins despite my collection was still huge. I knew they weren't going to last so I've played the entire 8th with 30 gretchins (all I have). Buying and painting 60-90 more just to be tournament level competitive? Lol.
Maybe your meta is different than mine, here the majority doesn't chase the meta burning hundreds every 6 months. They build fairly TAC armies and slowly expand them. New SM are some kind of exception because even if Eradicators don't have a stand alone kit people could buy multiple Indomitus halves for cheap. That starter is a huge deal. And you don't need more than 6-9 Eradicators anyway (so 2 or 3 halves). In reality the needed Eradicators are much more accessible than 15 Retributors with 12 multi meltas even if the store doesn't sell them separately. With a couple of Indomitus halves you already get an army, even a good one, with those 11 boxes of Retributors+Mortifiers you can only expand an already exsiting army, you need other 10+ boxes to play.
That's why I don't often see tournament lists that spam a few units, and why SM are a problem. SM can be tournament level without spamming anything or relying on ancient kits or FW stuff, they just need basic stuff.
Karol wrote: How does it work when you don't like the rest of the stuff your army has. For example I like how termintor models look, I don't like power armoured ones. If GW decides to ,as you said it, nuke termintor class models, even if I had money, I would not go out and buy 6-9 box of strikes just because they are better.
1st, that was kind of a joke. But for when it's not....
1) In other posts you've indicated that you like the look of some of the Primaris stuff (I forget wich ones). So here's the excuse to buy some of those. For awhile, assuming you don't buy all 2k pts/whole army at once, you soup them into a GK list. From the sounds of it you won't be harming yourself to much rules-wise or play-wise.... Over time with a few more purchases you end up with a Primaris army.
Now you've got options. You can play GK, you can play Primaris, or you can do various mixes of soup.
2) How do you feel about the vehicles & dreadnaughts in your codex?
Karol wrote: How does it work when you don't like the rest of the stuff your army has. For example I like how termintor models look, I don't like power armoured ones. If GW decides to ,as you said it, nuke termintor class models, even if I had money, I would not go out and buy 6-9 box of strikes just because they are better.
I don't know, what would you say to an Eldar player who doesn't like the playstyle of an all-flyer army that can't achieve objectives, don't interact with terrain and don't do melee?
Playing flyers is about as fun as playing as the aliens in a game of Space Invaders. You fly around the board - doesn't really matter where, can't achieve objectives anyway and your facing doesn't matter and your guns have like range = board, plus you're so high up that you can't hide and nothing can hide from you. And you just, try to remove some models from your opponent's army to prevent them from scoring while your 10 or so models that can actually play the game try and score a couple points.
Yeah everything is available at the store but not all hobbists are willing to collect armies of 7000 points or more. Now I see lists that require to buy 5 boxes of Retributors and 6 boxes of Mortifiers. Combined to all the other necessary stuff to make a reasonably working Adepta Sororitas collection that's a huge investment.
(sigh) Where to start with this....
YES, co$t to field the army you want is absolutely a factor for most people. It's exactly the reason why, long ago as an 18 year old collage student discovering WHFB, I didn't build Skaven. I couldn't afford it then. Instead I went with a force I both liked and was in budget. So yes, there well may be people who cant afford to build a SoB army. Or at least a 2k pt one.
But you CAN build smaller forces &/or other types of detachments.
*Yes, 12 mortifiers - 3 full squads- are quite a punch to your wallet. And there's not much that can be done to lessen that price tag (well, short of 3d printing/re-casters - but we'll assume your not going that route).
*3 squads of Retributors with full MM though? THOSE can be built on a budget. 3 boxes. + 6 MM bits sourced from ebay. You don't have to use SoBMMs. At the min. you just need melta barrels of any edition to replace the barrels of the heavy flamers you've already got. Considerably cheaper than full squad boxes.
Blackie wrote: Some prefer to start different projects, maybe even different games. Not many people actually have "extremely large armies".
These other projects are generally how most extremely large armies/collections I've ever seen occur. Most people I know playing these games (including myself) who have large collections build 1 force up to x pts. Then we move on to some other project. And another. And another after that.... We circle back to forces as new units/editions come out.
My own Necrons for example:
*I had 2k pts of original Necrons back in early 3rd edition.
*When the 1st codex & new models arrived I added some of the new stuff (monoliths, wraiths, dedicated heavy destroyers, 2 destroyer lords, the 2 C'tan of the time).
*Eventually FW released the Pylon. So I added a Pylon.
*Then 10 years(?) ago a new codex & a wave of new stuff - Barges, Arks, Triarch Stalkers, tomb blades, Doom/night scythes. So I added some of those things....
*Summer-Nov. of 2020 - Oh look, a new edition, new codex, & a whole lot of pretty new models. Between the Indom launch set & solo releases I've added a considerable amount of new things (+ several more things/kits from the previous release - + a 3rd squadron of 'Blades, + 1 box of wraiths) to my collection. I will admit that this years expansion has been pricey. But it's within the current hobby budget.
I now definitely have what you'd define as an extremely large army/collection of Necrons.
But it was built in chunks over 23 years, with ever improving finances, and for the current stuff over the course of 5 months.....
Blackie wrote: Maybe your meta is different than mine, here the majority doesn't chase the meta burning hundreds every 6 months. They build fairly TAC armies and slowly expand them.
That's mostly the approach most in my circles use. When they start an army they pick what they want to build, build that, and then expand as they please/need from there over time. Some times that's a TAC list, other times more skewish.
Now the people at the shop(s) that I don't consider "in my circles"? I couldn't tell you what their approach is and I don't care.
Blackie wrote: New SM are some kind of exception because even if Eradicators don't have a stand alone kit people could buy multiple Indomitus halves for cheap. That starter is a huge deal. And you don't need more than 6-9 Eradicators anyway (so 2 or 3 halves). In reality the needed Eradicators are much more accessible than 15 Retributors with 12 multi meltas even if the store doesn't sell them separately. With a couple of Indomitus halves you already get an army, even a good one, with those 11 boxes of Retributors+Mortifiers you can only expand an already exsiting army, you need other 10+ boxes to play.
Cheap Indom Primaris doesn't help anyone looking to play something else (like SoB) & who're not interested in playing SMs.
Eradicators are just as accessible as MM bits.
Do you realize that you can build an entire army focused on say a Spearhead detachment, invest the pts/$ in mostly 1 HQ, 6 heavy slots + bitz. After that play smaller pt games, add only minimal other stuff, & even spend pts/CP on units you don't own to place into strat reserve and never bring them into play? *I make no claim to how well this force might play, but you can keep a Mortifier/Retributor list within some sort of budget comparable to many other average costed forces.
Blackie wrote: That's why I don't often see tournament lists that spam a few units, and why SM are a problem. SM can be tournament level without spamming anything or relying on ancient kits or FW stuff, they just need basic stuff.
Cheap SMs are not a problem. Cheap effective tourney viable forces aren't either. They merely provide a slightly more affordable entry lv to our hobby. That's a good thing. Even if you're tied of killing SMs.
Do you realize that you can build an entire army focused on say a Spearhead detachment, invest the pts/$ in mostly 1 HQ, 6 heavy slots + bitz. After that play smaller pt games, add only minimal other stuff, & even spend pts/CP on units you don't own to place into strat reserve and never bring them into play? *I make no claim to how well this force might play, but you can keep a Mortifier/Retributor list within some sort of budget comparable to many other average costed forces.
You definitely can. But you should be aware that a single round of FAQ could cripple (or even invalidate) your entire army then. Best case scenario it will be completely destroyed with the new codex/edition, so 2-3 years at most. That's why I don't see people investing that much to spam a few specialists units, unless they already have a large army which is typically a luxury reserved for long time players. Finding cheap bitz on ebay or sites that sell bitz isn't that easy, a weapon like a MM which is the new hot won't be available for cheap and/or in large numbers.
Of course it's also possible to build smaller forces but then you'll miss the average game. Here everyone plays the standard 2000 points format. Sometimes there are some Crusade games but they don't involve skew armies, they're mostly for very casual dudes with basic armies.
But I understand your meta is basically ultra competitive like a permanent tournament, with people investing hundreds if not thousands every year to buy new stuff. Mine isn't anything like that, nor is any other meta I know from players I have contacts with that live in different cities.
Cheap SMs are not a problem. Cheap effective tourney viable forces aren't either. They merely provide a slightly more affordable entry lv to our hobby. That's a good thing. Even if you're tied of killing SMs.
They might be if you get bored of constantly playing against SM.
ccs 795520 11040155 wrote:
1st, that was kind of a joke. But for when it's not....
1) In other posts you've indicated that you like the look of some of the Primaris stuff (I forget wich ones). So here's the excuse to buy some of those. For awhile, assuming you don't buy all 2k pts/whole army at once, you soup them into a GK list. From the sounds of it you won't be harming yourself to much rules-wise or play-wise.... Over time with a few more purchases you end up with a Primaris army.
Now you've got options. You can play GK, you can play Primaris, or you can do various mixes of soup.
2) How do you feel about the vehicles & dreadnaughts in your codex?
1) Jokes, the things I seldom get, and which I learned to not make as they always get me in trouble. I don't think I like the idea of GK primaris. I like how the aggresor ones look and the heavy gravis models. But I wouldn't want them in GK. Primaris GK would mean GW would never fix non primaris stuff.
2) I do have a dreadnought and 2 rhinos, but in general I don't like vehicles. They are hard to transport without a car, and the kits cost a lot , specialy the new stuff.
I don't know, what would you say to an Eldar player who doesn't like the playstyle of an all-flyer army that can't achieve objectives, don't interact with terrain and don't do melee?
I don't think I am following your train of thoughts here. What do GK and how they are set up in the game have in common in how eldar are played. From what I understand GK were good for a few months at the end of one editions. Eldar are good and beyond in every editions they get a codex. There seems, at least to me, be a difference between someone being told wait for another 3-4 editions and maybe your army will be good, or phase out, and your army will be OP as soon as it gets a new book for this edition.
That said, nothing that comes out of Australia surprises me anymore. Remember a year or two ago when that guy won a 
And they win. 9th edition, an edition that's perfect for everyone. 
