There was a GT held in Texas this past weekend, and the top three were:

1. Craftworlds Eldar with Ynnari (Sean Nayden)
2. Orks
3. Custodes with Astra Militarum

https://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2021/03/15/all-you-can-eat-soup-covid-at-1st-us-major-of-2021/?fbclid=IwAR0EZ3KnIiG0Zz9Pp7qp9JTR6I9xKvHHj5eb92MlPX7zqfBly9uxq2InhH4

The article doesn't have many details, but its interesting that the top three do not have 9th Edition Codexes. The top list included Hellions. Yes. A squad of 14 Hellions. Who knew? He also had Dark Reapers, Incubi, Wyches, Wraithseers, a Ravager and Razorwings.

Dark Reapers are so 7th edition lol

I think this is the game - ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXWC4aUwjAA&t=3341s

A.T. wrote:
I think this is the game - ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXWC4aUwjAA&t=3341s

Yes, that's the game.

I've had a smile on my face that such a strange list won a GT and fought a solid bracket to do it ever since I heard.

Neat.

Avatar of Khaine nerfs when?

In all seriousness, looking at the list it's basically just a bunch of solid countermeta units (wraithseer in particular is very good at being obnoxious to kill with meta melta weapons thanks to its invuln save and T8 on a not super expensive platform that also has pretty quality melee attacks) with a bunch of hyper cheap units like razorwings that are really really great at scoring points.

The 2nd Place Ork had 18 Smasha Guns ; three Grot Mega-Tanks; Lootas and several squads of Grots. Thats some firepower!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The 2nd Place Ork had 18 Smasha Guns ; three Grot Mega-Tanks; Lootas and several squads of Grots. Thats some firepower!

LOL - this is a proppa ork army IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Neat.

Avatar of Khaine nerfs when?

In all seriousness, looking at the list it's basically just a bunch of solid countermeta units (wraithseer in particular is very good at being obnoxious to kill with meta melta weapons thanks to its invuln save and T8 on a not super expensive platform that also has pretty quality melee attacks) with a bunch of hyper cheap units like razorwings that are really really great at scoring points.

It's always been good.

I don't play CWE often but support platforms with D cannons really should be dominating on these tables as well. Eradicators are basically useless against them cause they cant split fire effectively. Plus with the smaller table are 24" ILOS weapon can reach most of the objective points from a safe position!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The 2nd Place Ork had 18 Smasha Guns ; three Grot Mega-Tanks; Lootas and several squads of Grots. Thats some firepower!

Basically kill anything that makes the gretchin worry and put up flags with them and sneak kommandos in the back.

Grot Mob
Mek KFF
Bike Boss

20 Gretchin
20 Gretchin
10 Gretchin

5 Kommandos

3 Grot Mega KBBs
18 Smasha


Bad Moons
Weirdboy
27 Gretchin
9 Lootas


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Neat.

Avatar of Khaine nerfs when?

In all seriousness, looking at the list it's basically just a bunch of solid countermeta units (wraithseer in particular is very good at being obnoxious to kill with meta melta weapons thanks to its invuln save and T8 on a not super expensive platform that also has pretty quality melee attacks) with a bunch of hyper cheap units like razorwings that are really really great at scoring points.

This list has some more to it.

Crafters/Concealment
Avatar
Skyrunner

3x3 Reapers
2 Wraithseers

Ynnari
Archon
Yvraine

3 min Razorwings
2 Ur-ghul

5 Wyches
Beastmaster
7 Inucbi
14 Hellions
Dissie Ravager


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

3. Custodes with Astra Militarum

Legit mega dreadnought spam ( 7! ) with some regular scions and one command with meltas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Interesting top 10 - here's the rest:

Death Guard ( no Morty )
BT
DA (lost very first game to Harlies)
T'au - Aun'shi, lots of Breachers, Carnivores, Coldstar, Riptide, Ghostkeel, 2 Stealth units, Pathfinders, Y'vahra, 2 Devilfish
BA
Dreadnoughts, Baby Knights, and Knight
"normal" Custodes

The BA list was exceptionally dangerous. In one of the later matches, it took the Slayer the Warlord secondary and scored it first turn by dive bombing the opponent. Very fast

The biggest surprise for me is actually the Tau list. Also, anyone got a link to the results?

So what, if anything, does this reveal about the state of "meta" in 9th. I keep hearing it's very much objectives and that's it, which most people seem to think is a bad thing because it's such a narrow focus (thanks ITC).

Wayniac wrote:
So what, if anything, does this reveal about the state of "meta" in 9th. I keep hearing it's very much objectives and that's it, which most people seem to think is a bad thing because it's such a narrow focus (thanks ITC).

Well, the quick takeaways are:

1. The meta is fairly diverse in what factions can perform well. Orks, Chaos soup, Death Guard, flavors of Space Marine and Eldar soup are all strong contenders (and other tournaments let us know that AdMech and Harlequins are riding high in there too with Custodes and Adepta Sororitas still contenders but trailing a hair).

2. Terrain remains, as always, critical. This tournament had at least one table with a special 'bunker' terrain in each deployment zone that allowed vehicles/monsters to walk through the walls.

3. Based on the last match-up between Nayden and Nanavati, raw killing power isn't the winning formula. You want to balance playing the mission with having the tools necessary to surgically remove problematic enemy units.

Wayniac wrote:
So what, if anything, does this reveal about the state of "meta" in 9th.

More than anything else, the takeaway is that the US meta is still *very* young, and we'll need more data to get a handle on how factions are performing on that side of the pond(s). There are absolutely flying rodent gak lists in that roster relative to the bulk of the 9th edition data so far (from entirely different environments).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The 2nd Place Ork had 18 Smasha Guns ; three Grot Mega-Tanks; Lootas and several squads of Grots. Thats some firepower!

Basically kill anything that makes the gretchin worry and put up flags with them and sneak kommandos in the back.

Grot Mob
Mek KFF
Bike Boss

20 Gretchin
20 Gretchin
10 Gretchin

5 Kommandos

3 Grot Mega KBBs
18 Smasha


Bad Moons
Weirdboy
27 Gretchin
9 Lootas


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Neat.

Avatar of Khaine nerfs when?

In all seriousness, looking at the list it's basically just a bunch of solid countermeta units (wraithseer in particular is very good at being obnoxious to kill with meta melta weapons thanks to its invuln save and T8 on a not super expensive platform that also has pretty quality melee attacks) with a bunch of hyper cheap units like razorwings that are really really great at scoring points.

This list has some more to it.

Crafters/Concealment
Avatar
Skyrunner

3x3 Reapers
2 Wraithseers

Ynnari
Archon
Yvraine

3 min Razorwings
2 Ur-ghul

5 Wyches
Beastmaster
7 Inucbi
14 Hellions
Dissie Ravager


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

3. Custodes with Astra Militarum

Legit mega dreadnought spam ( 7! ) with some regular scions and one command with meltas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Interesting top 10 - here's the rest:

Death Guard ( no Morty )
BT
DA (lost very first game to Harlies)
T'au - Aun'shi, lots of Breachers, Carnivores, Coldstar, Riptide, Ghostkeel, 2 Stealth units, Pathfinders, Y'vahra, 2 Devilfish
BA
Dreadnoughts, Baby Knights, and Knight
"normal" Custodes

I think he had the Yncarne in there too?

Audustum wrote:

I think he had the Yncarne in there too?

I don't see it on BS.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

I think he had the Yncarne in there too?

I don't see it on BS.

You're right, the screenshot I had listed Yvraine twice due to overlap and my brain fried.

Darsath wrote:
The biggest surprise for me is actually the Tau list. Also, anyone got a link to the results?

WWWWLW

Scored as follows:
82 to 38 - UM
88 to 51 - CW
72 to 49 - The Marine Dreadnoughts and Knights list
92 to 47 - Custodes & Scions
50 to 75 - ( Nanavanti ) DG
88 to 82 - weird CSM soup using Heretic Astartes keyword

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
The biggest surprise for me is actually the Tau list. Also, anyone got a link to the results?

WWWWLW

Scored as follows:
82 to 38 - UM
88 to 51 - CW
72 to 49 - The Marine Dreadnoughts and Knights list
92 to 47 - Custodes & Scions
50 to 75 - ( Nanavanti ) DG
88 to 82 - weird CSM soup using Heretic Astartes keyword

They class Nanavati's list as DG but it is also some kind of Chaos Soup itself I think. Focused on MW's with a Lord of Change or am I assuming too much overlap with TJ's list?

Everything about that ork list is odd. The whole tournament feels like people bringing their 8th edition lists out to play 9th.

People kind of missing the fact that it's Sean Nayden. He always plays to the beat of his own drum and makes up the weirdest jank-ass lists that are uniquely him and which people try to replicate and fail.

Audustum wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
The biggest surprise for me is actually the Tau list. Also, anyone got a link to the results?

WWWWLW

Scored as follows:
82 to 38 - UM
88 to 51 - CW
72 to 49 - The Marine Dreadnoughts and Knights list
92 to 47 - Custodes & Scions
50 to 75 - ( Nanavanti ) DG
88 to 82 - weird CSM soup using Heretic Astartes keyword

They class Nanavati's list as DG but it is also some kind of Chaos Soup itself I think. Focused on MW's with a Lord of Change or am I assuming too much overlap with TJ's list?

All DG. Lots of pox.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
The biggest surprise for me is actually the Tau list. Also, anyone got a link to the results?

WWWWLW

Scored as follows:
82 to 38 - UM
88 to 51 - CW
72 to 49 - The Marine Dreadnoughts and Knights list
92 to 47 - Custodes & Scions
50 to 75 - ( Nanavanti ) DG
88 to 82 - weird CSM soup using Heretic Astartes keyword

They class Nanavati's list as DG but it is also some kind of Chaos Soup itself I think. Focused on MW's with a Lord of Change or am I assuming too much overlap with TJ's list?

All DG. Lots of pox.

Huh, I thought I saw a birdman in the youtube video. Oh well.

 Jidmah wrote:
Everything about that ork list is odd. The whole tournament feels like people bringing their 8th edition lists out to play 9th.

Sort of. I can see where he's going with it, which is enough shooting to keep gross safe. The gross don't care to shoot so they're stringing up banners and then Engage with kommandos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:


Huh, I thought I saw a birdman in the youtube video. Oh well.

Probably the DP


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
People kind of missing the fact that it's Sean Nayden. He always plays to the beat of his own drum and makes up the weirdest jank-ass lists that are uniquely him and which people try to replicate and fail.

It's a quintessential 9th edition list. The problem is other people and how they perceive options especially with no experience in this edition due to covid.

He has cheap and hideable units for actions, speed and unit count for table control, durability, and effective unit removal for big threats.

Sean Nayden’s list was unfortunately illegal. He ran 3 units of 1 razorwing flocks (which was part of his MSU screening/secondary grabbing) and per the current Munitorum Field Manual the minimum unit size is 3.

greyknight12 wrote:
Sean Nayden’s list was unfortunately illegal. He ran 3 units of 1 razorwing flocks (which was part of his MSU screening/secondary grabbing) and per the current Munitorum Field Manual the minimum unit size is 3.

That's unfortunate. He can probably keep the general list dropping one and squeezing a couple other models out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Everything about that ork list is odd. The whole tournament feels like people bringing their 8th edition lists out to play 9th.

Sort of. I can see where he's going with it, which is enough shooting to keep gross safe. The gross don't care to shoot so they're stringing up banners and then Engage with kommandos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:


Huh, I thought I saw a birdman in the youtube video. Oh well.

Probably the DP


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bosskelot wrote:
People kind of missing the fact that it's Sean Nayden. He always plays to the beat of his own drum and makes up the weirdest jank-ass lists that are uniquely him and which people try to replicate and fail.

It's a quintessential 9th edition list. The problem is other people and how they perceive options especially with no experience in this edition due to covid.

He has cheap and hideable units for actions, speed and unit count for table control, durability, and effective unit removal for big threats.

Interesting to note that Nanavati thought Nayden's list 'lacked punch' before facing it and that it seemingly did surprise him. So even people immersing themselves in 9th were surprised by it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

greyknight12 wrote:
Sean Nayden’s list was unfortunately illegal. He ran 3 units of 1 razorwing flocks (which was part of his MSU screening/secondary grabbing) and per the current Munitorum Field Manual the minimum unit size is 3.

That's unfortunate. He can probably keep the general list dropping one and squeezing a couple other models out.

Probably, but it looks like at least some of the power of the list was the great zoning/board control from those inexpensive Razorwings. They're actually quite easy to hide as well because they're so small, especially if you take units of 1.

Shouldn't the headline here be 'Top Player Sean Nayden Cheats to Win a 40k Tournament' given his illegal list?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Shouldn't the headline here be 'Top Player Sean Nayden Cheats to Win a 40k Tournament' given his illegal list?

It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

The MFM 2021 Mk1 has the minimum as 3. This contradicts the Codex and the new Power Level listings.

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

Munitorum Field Manual 2021, pg.32

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

Munitorum Field Manual 2021, pg.32

Cool, thanks. Not sure how I missed that, it's literally right where I thought I'd looked.

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

The Feb MFM points pdf up on the GW site.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

Page 32
Razorwing Flock
Unit size.... 3-9 models
Unit cost.... 12 pts/model

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

Points update has it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

Tracking the munitorium manual - we are also not tracking what went on with the TO and lists. Its hardly cheating, although I wouldn't want to have an list with an error at that level.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Tracking the munitorium manual - we are also not tracking what went on with the TO and lists. Its hardly cheating, although I wouldn't want to have an list with an error at that level.

If a sports team scores with an extra man on the field and the refs don't catch it they still broke the rules of the game and cheated, even if the extra man was a complete oversight to all involved.

I think that's an accidental oversight on Nayden's list. Calling him a cheater is uncalled for.


Now, if we want to talk about an actual cheater from the event, that would be the Tau Player. This player ended up having to have 3 judges watch his table round 5, and was called out multiple times for multiple things during the course of the event. He's also been banned from other events.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

Tracking the munitorium manual - we are also not tracking what went on with the TO and lists. Its hardly cheating, although I wouldn't want to have an list with an error at that level.

I wouldn't call it cheating, but suggesting he may have got the TO's permission is a weird take. Seems like you're going out of your way to excuse what is highly likely to just be an honest mistake. Why should a TO randomly allow a player to break the rules? Can I contact them and ask if I can take 9 Outriders in a squad for...reasons? Any TO that would allow that, especially without informing other players, is invalidating their own tournament IMO.

If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

Not necessarily, if lists were locked in before then all good right?

His list is illegal, RFW's are min 3 and has been sense the Munitorum update.

Pg 32 https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

 Amishprn86 wrote:
His list is illegal, RFW's are min 3 and has been sense the Munitorum update.

Pg 32 https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

When did the power rating update come out? Before the munitorium ? Same time? Iater?

n/m

missing the unit size change is a very easy mistake to make, assuming its even an intended change. Not like GW has fethed up those sort of lists before.

Yes its not great and you can put an * next to his win but I don't see a case for deliberate cheating.

ccs wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
His list is illegal, RFW's are min 3 and has been sense the Munitorum update.

Pg 32 https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

When did the power rating update come out? Before the munitorium ? Same time? Iater?

Simultaneously. Both have since been updated, hence the february 4th date on both.

 Sasori wrote:
I think that's an accidental oversight on Nayden's list. Calling him a cheater is uncalled for.


Now, if we want to talk about an actual cheater from the event, that would be the Tau Player. This player ended up having to have 3 judges watch his table round 5, and was called out multiple times for multiple things during the course of the event. He's also been banned from other events.

What’s the source on this one?

 Ordana wrote:
missing the unit size change is a very easy mistake to make, assuming its even an intended change. Not like GW has fethed up those sort of lists before.

Yes its not great and you can put an * next to his win but I don't see a case for deliberate cheating.

Its a popular unit to take actually and most DE players takes Court b.c it is 1 model instead of 3+. A lot of the units actually changed in size, RWF, Khymerea's, Grots, and Wracks. This is why you don't use Battlescribe for you "rules" b.c BS still has it the old way.

PS, not saying he cheated on purpose, most likely he never even look at the unit or the new faqs and instead just used Battlescribe.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

PL is also not used when making lists for Match play. So does it matter they are different? Reavers PL is drastically different from Hellions. Hellions are 23.3ppl and Reavers are 13.4ppl. And some DE players has been emailing GW about this for awhile now, same for Scourges and other units.

The thing is PL is just not really cared about when some units are grossly over costed, why does GW even care? They don't.

So i wouldn't look at PL's (or Power Rating as its called now) as a good example of "correct".

 alextroy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

And if they've both been updated since, what was the cutoff date for wich rules/faqs/etc to use at this event?

Just because something is illegal now doesn't mean it was so at the tine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
PL is also not used when making lists for Match play. So does it matter they are different? Reavers PL is drastically different from Hellions. Hellions are 23.3ppl and Reavers are 13.4ppl. And some DE players has been emailing GW about this for awhile now, same for Scourges and other units.

The thing is PL is just not really cared about when some units are grossly over costed, why does GW even care? They don't.

So i wouldn't look at PL's (or Power Rating as its called now) as a good example of "correct".

time.

Isn't PL still a factor in putting things in Strategic Reserves?

The datasheet decides how many models can be in a unit and which battlefield role they are. Codex Drukhari has no FAQ changing Razorwing unit size so the list was legal. This is Deathmark Troops over again.

This book contains the most up-to-date points values that should be used in your matched play games, covering all the factions in Warhammer 40,000.

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how many models the unit can contain) and how many points the unit costs.

The points values listed in this book replace any published previously, and should be used in your matched play games...

MFM contains up to date points and replaces points cost values listed previously, but it does not replace the unit's size, it simply lists it. In the same way that Deathmarks had their battlefield role listed as Troops, which was unimportant because the battlefield role, like unit size is decided by the datasheet, which is not overwritten by a misprint in MFM 2021.

I hope it makes you feel more secure thinking that he cheated, wouldn't want to risk having to change your beliefs.

ccs wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

And if they've both been updated since, what was the cutoff date for wich rules/faqs/etc to use at this event?

Just because something is illegal now doesn't mean it was so at the tine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
PL is also not used when making lists for Match play. So does it matter they are different? Reavers PL is drastically different from Hellions. Hellions are 23.3ppl and Reavers are 13.4ppl. And some DE players has been emailing GW about this for awhile now, same for Scourges and other units.

The thing is PL is just not really cared about when some units are grossly over costed, why does GW even care? They don't.

So i wouldn't look at PL's (or Power Rating as its called now) as a good example of "correct".

time.

Isn't PL still a factor in putting things in Strategic Reserves?

Yes but thats why i said list building, and why i did email GW about it a couple times. They came out with the PL update right at launch of 9th and there has ben oddities after 2 updates. To me that says they don't care
about PL.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
The datasheet decides how many models can be in a unit and which battlefield role they are. Codex Drukhari has no FAQ changing Razorwing unit size so the list was legal. This is Deathmark Troops over again.

This book contains the most up-to-date points values that should be used in your matched play games, covering all the factions in Warhammer 40,000.

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how many models the unit can contain) and how many points the unit costs.

The points values listed in this book replace any published previously, and should be used in your matched play games...

MFM contains up to date points and replaces points cost values listed previously, but it does not replace the unit's size, it simply lists it. In the same way that Deathmarks had their battlefield role listed as Troops, which was unimportant because the battlefield role, like unit size is decided by the datasheet, which is not overwritten by a misprint in MFM 2021.

I hope it makes you feel more secure thinking that he cheated, wouldn't want to risk having to change your beliefs.

Why would it not replace unit sizes?

Via the faq

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of
each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how
many models the unit can contain) and how many points the
unit costs. If an entry has a unit cost of ‘x pts/model’, then the
unit costs x points for every model in that unit. You must then
add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included
in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and
wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to
include in that unit).
The points values listed in this book replace any published
previously, and should be used in your matched play games (or
any of your games that are using points values). As with the
previous edition of the Munitorum Field Manual, this book
contains the points values for every single unit that, at the time
of printing, are supported for matched play games, eliminating
the need to flip back and forth between two or more books.

To me it says use these unit sizes.

"Each entry lists the unit’s size"

"lists" being the operative word. It does not change, it merely lists. In the same way it lists battlefield role, but does not change it. Therefore any difference between the unit's size that is listed here and the actual rules for the unit's size in the datasheet can be assumed to be an error as was the case with Deathmarks being wrongly listed as Troops when the datasheet said they were Elites.

From the main rulebook "If a unit’s profile does not, then this part of a datasheet will tell you what models are in the unit, and how many of them you should have. It also tells you the default weapons and wargear the models are equipped with." refering to the COMPOSITION AND WARGEAR part of datasheets.

Yeah, there definitely is a grey area. Seems something that a TO could rule one way or the another.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Why would it not replace unit sizes?

Via the faq

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of
each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how
many models the unit can contain) and how many points the
unit costs. If an entry has a unit cost of ‘x pts/model’, then the
unit costs x points for every model in that unit. You must then
add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included
in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and
wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to
include in that unit).
The points values listed in this book replace any published
previously, and should be used in your matched play games (or
any of your games that are using points values). As with the
previous edition of the Munitorum Field Manual, this book
contains the points values for every single unit that, at the time
of printing, are supported for matched play games, eliminating
the need to flip back and forth between two or more books.

To me it says use these unit sizes.

Because the points values are explicitly called out as replacing that information in the codex, but the unit size values aren't?

It is also entirely possible that the unit size changes with the release of the DE book on the 27th, and some numpty didn't remember that the change wasn't in place when they updated the MFM, while a different person working on the PL document was paying attention to the current unit size.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

Well to is the ultimate law so if to says so mfm is irrelevant.

However seeing it's only 3-12 in one source differing also pl list(also official source) it's honest mistake most　likely than cheating. Cheating requires intention. Mistakes aren't cheating as anybody with knowledge of english　language　knows.

Mistake　could even　be on　gw's　side.

Cheating implies intent, I don't think this is a given here.

Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

With the 9th edition codex, I wouldn't be shocked if the beasts get a rule saying they can't perform actions.

Obviously the 8th edition books don't have it, since actions weren't a real thing at the time.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

Some actions have restrictions. Some don't. Something that comes to mind is a mission based secondary where you have to scan objectives and survive a turn - any unit can do that one.

tneva82 wrote:


Mistake　could even　be on　gw's　side.

No.... that could never happen.

 alextroy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

So no ITC then....cuz their whole thing is house rules?

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

So no ITC then....cuz their whole thing is house rules?

ITC house rules have all been wiped in 9th, go celebrate, the only people to blame are within GW now.

If we want to get technical, all events are house ruled to a degree.

I still have to find one which is played by the book.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

the rule that is a rule, has been demonstrated as to why it is : Firstly a grey area, and secondly an equally new update for matched play in the form of the PL table rating has the same as the former codex with only the Pts manual falling out...

Like, i get the players responsibilty angle but before that we need GW to finally step it's game up

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

So no ITC then....cuz their whole thing is house rules?

Honestly this was always my stance. ITC House rules were not real 40k. Now 40k has moved towards a more ITC style approach in 9th. There should be a ranked play rule book that everyone follows at the very least. You shouldn't have some events enforcing the 1-12 rule and one enforcing the 3-9 rule is what I am saying. Everything in ranked play should be held to the same standard. When it comes to this issue though - I think it is more reasonable to go with the more restrictive interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
If we want to get technical, all events are house ruled to a degree.

I still have to find one which is played by the book.

This is a big issue IMO.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

They are quite useless for actions as a swarm. Either he was grabbing corners / linebreaker or using them to trigger SfD more often. Given they are not obsec and that they die fast when there's only one I can't imagine he relied on them holding things.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

They are quite useless for actions as a swarm. Either he was grabbing corners / linebreaker or using them to trigger SfD more often. Given they are not obsec and that they die fast when there's only one I can't imagine he relied on them holding things.

They are tiny - you can literally block them with your own models. Like a character that you aren't even eligible to shoot at.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Which is more restrictive? Being forced to take 3 or being limited to a max of 9?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Which is more restrictive? Being forced to take 3 or being limited to a max of 9?

3-9 so people can claim the most possible people cheat, at least when it suits a narrative.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Which is more restrictive? Being forced to take 3 or being limited to a max of 9?

Being forced to take 3 as nobody is taking these in maxed-sized units.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are tiny - you can literally block them with your own models. Like a character that you aren't even eligible to shoot at.

I know, but they aren't going to have other models blocking for them. Just terrain. If they're scoring secondaries then the other person doesn't care enough to shoot them.

He went first and he didn't even engage the middle objectives until turn 3. The Wraithseers never even went into combat. Turn 3 he literally blew away DG in combat and he conceeded.

You can see a Razorwing here just floating in plain view of some PMs here:

VS DG with practically no guns that can be a use for them. EOAF or line breaker or something. Vs shooting armies standing them behind an avatar or wraithseer and stand on objectives with impunity is another. I mean - look at all these little ledges you can hide a model that small. They were probably his MVP units.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

And you're certain that this wasn't clarified by the TO?

The floor rules of that tournament can be found here:
https://clutch-city-gt.webnode.com/a40k-gt-information/

Looking at their rules, actively trying to cheat by bringing an illegal list seems like a super easy way to get disqualified or end up with a terrible army.

The lists also have been available for public viewing a week before the event started and no one caught the problem.

 Jidmah wrote:
The floor rules of that tournament can be found here:
https://clutch-city-gt.webnode.com/a40k-gt-information/

Looking at their rules, actively trying to cheat by bringing an illegal list seems like a super easy way to get disqualified or end up with a terrible army.

The lists also have been available for public viewing a week before the event started and no one caught the problem.

Doesn't really surprise me. I thought I knew DE pretty well, but didn't know until this thread that the Munitorum Field Manual had changed the minimum unit for Razorwings from 1 to 3. Its not something that's been flagged up. Calling this cheating seems a bit extreme.

I mean it would still be cheating. Just not intentional, presumably, and not malicious.

If it's not intentional nor malicious, it's not cheating.

Wayniac wrote:
I mean it would still be cheating. Just not intentional, presumably, and not malicious.

thats called making a mistake.

Tyel wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The floor rules of that tournament can be found here:
https://clutch-city-gt.webnode.com/a40k-gt-information/

Looking at their rules, actively trying to cheat by bringing an illegal list seems like a super easy way to get disqualified or end up with a terrible army.

The lists also have been available for public viewing a week before the event started and no one caught the problem.

Doesn't really surprise me. I thought I knew DE pretty well, but didn't know until this thread that the Munitorum Field Manual had changed the minimum unit for Razorwings from 1 to 3. Its not something that's been flagged up. Calling this cheating seems a bit extreme.

Given the MFM intro is explicit about changing points costs, but makes no mention of changing unit sizes, I'm not even convinced this is an actual change instead of a GW error in the document.

Worst case, I reckon, is that the unit size is changing with the new book, and it was included here by accident.

To add to the confusion, I just found out that there is a new MFM in the current white dwarf which has content that differs from the PDF

 Jidmah wrote:
To add to the confusion, I just found out that there is a new MFM in the current white dwarf which has content that differs from the PDF

I believe that's the original version of the current document. Because of the lead times in printing it contains a whole bunch of errors that were later corrected in an update. There are two solutions GW could employ for this:

1. Stop taking up space in your magazine with a reprint of something that's already available on your own website.
2. Stop making such stupid errors in the first place.

Neither seem likely to happen.

Have any of you thought to contact the TOs & simply ask them whether or not they'd made a ruling on the unit size?

ccs wrote:
Have any of you thought to contact the TOs & simply ask them whether or not they'd made a ruling on the unit size?

Does it matter to this thread? The people that don't like CWE/Ynnari winning a GT can say the victory is voided because of houserules instead of cheating and unless the winner was told his list was illegal and brought it anyway it's not going to change the opinion of those that don't mind CWE/Ynnari winning an event.

 vict0988 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Have any of you thought to contact the TOs & simply ask them whether or not they'd made a ruling on the unit size?

Does it matter to this thread? The people that don't like CWE/Ynnari winning a GT can say the victory is voided because of houserules instead of cheating and unless the winner was told his list was illegal and brought it anyway it's not going to change the opinion of those that don't mind CWE/Ynnari winning an event.

No, it won't matter. I just think it's stupid of them to debate the question for 50 pages when they might just be able to solve the mystery....