Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The third mission doesn't penalize competitive armies. It penalizes mobile armies.

Mechanized armies aren't mobile? What kind of ridiculous nonsense are you spouting?

Nope, instead you'll use it as a springboard for why 'ard boys doesn't count as a real tournament because it had comp-esque missions and use this as a conveniently pre-written excuse if you don't make the cut.

Well, you know the old saying about assumptions. Keep up the internet tough guy attitude though--we're all very, very impressed.

Where did Redbeard write that mechanized armies aren't mobile?

Also, I don't assume the Wipeout rule is in effect unless the T.O. says it is.

Danny Internets wrote:

The third mission doesn't penalize competitive armies. It penalizes mobile armies.

Mechanized armies aren't mobile? What kind of ridiculous nonsense are you spouting?

We both agree that the 3rd mission penalizes mobile armies. We both agree that mechanized armies are mobile, and that as a result, the 3rd mission must also therefore punish mechanized armies.

You are making the mistake, however, of claiming that it penalizes competitive armies. You outright claimed "Mechanized armies are competitive." in your last post. And that's simply not true. You are claiming that by virtue of being mechanized, an army is automatically competitive.

I can prove that being mechanized, alone, does not make an army competitive. See the following list:

Dark Angels, 2500 points:
Company master
Chaplian
6x 10 tac squad in rhino
3x 10 veterans in rhino
2x 10 devastators in rhino

It's a mechanized army. Automatically competitive? Not at all. It has no weapon upgrades at all, no specials, no heavies, no CC. Just men in rhinos. But it's mechanized.

The 3rd mission punishes that army. It punishes it for being mechanized. It punishes it for being mobile. What it doesn't do it punish it for being competitive.

The 3rd mission does not punish competitive armies - the strength of the build is not a factor in whether the 3rd mission hurts the army or not. It punishes non-competitive mobile armies and it does not punish competitive foot-slogging armies.

Competitive and Mobile are completely independent factors. Some mobile armies are competitive, some non-mobile armies are competitive. Some mobile armies are not competitive, and some non-mobile armies are not competitive. That's what you seem to be having trouble grasping. "Mechanized armies are competitive." - your statement is simply not true.

Do you get it yet? You stated: "that's exactly what this is: being put at a huge disadvantage for bringing a competitive army to the table". And that is incorrect. No one is being put at a disadvantage for bringing a competitive army. People are being put at a disadvantage for bringing mobile armies, which may or not be competitive.

It should be interesting for me, my Tau are actually not that affected by this. I still *only* give up 18 KPs in the third mission.

Of course, if everyone knee jerks and takes horde lists, I'm screwed.

Preach on, brother Redbeard!

People who are whining about the 3rd mission really need to grow a pair. Lets try to look at the missions in total and see what it looks like.

Mission 1:
1. 5 objectives, with the need to hold multiple objectives to gain max points rewarding armies with lots of scoring units.
2. <removed because I failed geometry.>
3. The bonus modifiers are pretty straightforward, but actually work against having large numbers of scoring units.
4. Definitely rewards an army with mobility - moving forward and seizing objectives, especially since the game length is pre-determined to make turn 6 objective grabs possible.

Mission 2:
1. Victory points here...all the old 4th ed VP metagaming comes into play (some of which is directly contrary to the usual 5th ed build paradigms.
2. Battle point modifiers for table quarters...although if I'm reading the mission correctly, ONLY scoring units count for holding/contesting quarters, and you just need more scoring units in a quarter than your opponent to control/contest. Definitely rewards the side with more scoring units. Mobile/static is pretty much a wash here, although I think the edge goes to mobility, especially for the bonus conditions.

Mission 3: The one people are whining about.
1. Heavily weighted against mobility in a mobile v. non-mobile matchup. Aside from that, its just like any other kill point mission, in that armies with lots of units are disadvantaged.

Feels like the whole tournament is skewed now to armies that can A) take A LOT of scoring units for mission 1 and 2.. and then make a shooty army without the need for fast moving units

Hmm is there an army out there that has massive amounts of scoring units and can shoot a ton? ?? i wonder who it is!

Feels like year 2 all over again with the over reliance on needing tons of troop choices when half the armies have horrible ones.. Last year felt more tactical with only needing to win, not play a codex that can spam the best troops

Oh well, Ive gotten to the finals every year and 2 semi final prize armies.. Just adapt! Even if I think they dropped the ball compared to last year

Kirasu wrote:

Clthomps wrote:

Last time I checked being fully painted was not in the rule packet. The only thing they mention is that you have to use citadel models and any conversions need to be 60% GW parts.

60% now? Guess ill bring my gram weighing device! MR JUDGE this according to the weight of the model it is only 57% percentage GW parts.. It must be disqualified!

Seriously ive asked this before.. how do you judge such a thing?

I wonder how many `Nid Spods that people have made are 60% GW parts...

Better disqualify them then.. The anti-fun police are on your tail and Gw will ARREST all store owners who do not enforce the policies mandated by Lord Jervis

Oh, wait, I know! I'll just grab a bunch of bitz I don't use and fill up the inside of my MegaBloks Spods with them.

Oh no! My unbeatable mech army that takes not thought to play might have to use tactics to win!


#1. It is a free tournament, play what you want.

#2. Mech armies are a crutch, and you should be able to make an army with or without them.

#3. In my experience it is hard to kill chimeras (which is why mech IG is so good). If you lose some chimeras so what? On the other side of the table they will have units that give up 3KP also, and just take them out.

Ill give you a bonesinger model if you make a mech guard player cry with foot eldar

You are making the mistake, however, of claiming that it penalizes competitive armies. You outright claimed "Mechanized armies are competitive." in your last post. And that's simply not true. You are claiming that by virtue of being mechanized, an army is automatically competitive.

Congratulations on your wonderful strawman. Now, when we put this discussion back in context, in almost every case a mechanized version of of an army will be more powerful (and thus, more competitive) than a non-mechanized version. Take your DA list for example and remove the mech components, add in more infantry. Did it get better or worse?

2/3 of the normal missions in 40k are objective-based. Mobility makes your army more capable at capturing and contesting objectives. Mechanized armies offer mobility. This is rudimentary stuff that you already know, so I'm not sure why you insist on being argumentative on this point.

Claiming that mechanized armies don't provide a competitive edge because you can still build a bad mechanized list is like saying the IG codex isn't good because it's possible to make a bad army out of it.

Anyo e read the bonus points for mission 3?
The first one us funny

I got a BA list I think will surprise people and put them on the defensive.. No way im abandoning all my fast stuff for 1 mission but I did add a healthy portion of foot sloggers

Hte 3rd mission is basically an uber big FU to everyone that downloaded the leaf blows army list. Must suck if you bought lots of those chimeroohs.

G

Chimeras are strong on their own.

Leafblower is only strong if you have magic dice that let you go first every time.

I have no regrets to be bringing a strong mech guard list, I just hope I don't get cheesed out by a guy hiding half a unit the whole game in the third mission.

The funny thing is that everyone is so fixated on mission #3, that they do see the other interesting things about the missions.

For example: there is no Dawn of War style deployment.

That means that the Space Wolves with their Long Fangs get to set up on the board every mission.

It also means that you can ram 9 carnifexes down your opponent’s throat, and you do not have to worry about them starting in reserve.

In a world. Based on the utter hell everything is just another card game.

Blackmoor wrote:The funny thing is that everyone is so fixated on mission #3, that they do see the other interesting things about the missions.

For example: there is no Dawn of War style deployment.

That means that the Space Wolves with their Long Fangs get to set up on the board every mission.

It also means that you can ram 9 carnifexes down your opponent’s throat, and you do not have to worry about them starting in reserve.

No Night Fight either, which makes my Necrons sad.

Yes this year is very good for shooting armies

21 missle launcher, 60 grey-hunter footslogging wolves will probably win this year. Seems that way. Plenty of deadliness for the first two missions, not many kill points for the third one.

I am running alot of battle wagons and trukks. Trukks for sure will pop, don't mind it though. Battle wagons are a different story. Yea I have alot of kill points; doesn't mean I am giving them up without a fight. WAAAGH!!!!

Spellbound wrote:21 missle launcher, 60 grey-hunter footslogging wolves will probably win this year. Seems that way. Plenty of deadliness for the first two missions, not many kill points for the third one.

AV14 is a curse to a fully missile launcher list. Double and triple land raider lists don't give up many killpoints over a 21 missile launcher list EITHER, and can shrug off all those missile launchers. Battlewagons can cause trouble as well.

Except each squad has 3 meltas also

Come close. Very close with the meltas. That's what they are all about.

G

Blackmoor wrote:The funny thing is that everyone is so fixated on mission #3, that they do see the other interesting things about the missions.

For example: there is no Dawn of War style deployment.

That means that the Space Wolves with their Long Fangs get to set up on the board every mission.

It also means that you can ram 9 carnifexes down your opponent’s throat, and you do not have to worry about them starting in reserve.

Single most intelligent observation brought up in this thread. I strongly suspect that deep strike will not count for the 3KP qualification, so I would guess the Wolf players who rotate out Razorspam for pods will dominate. I can see Kan Wall Green Tide and certain nid builds doing well, also, but not the 9 fex one. Too many wolf players out there to not draw the JOTWW at some point. Hybrid Guard armies will do pretty damn well, too, since its easier to punk Rhinos than Chimeras, giving them the upper hand in that urinating for distance contest.

Lack of Dawn of War is pretty massive, though. It opens up some options that people normally avoid, like certain artilery units.

GW saw the direction of the meta game in the US, then threw a twist and monkey wrench in the game. They watch the threads and army list generated for other events, then try make rules to detour them for Ard Boyz to make things a little more interesting for the competitive players. The competitive player should see this as a challenge, when the player with lesser skills should see a hugh hurdle. How to make my list work even when the biggest monkey wrench gets thrown in my way. I am up to the challenge to see how I do with my list probaly only adding another troop selection.

Ran my Tau vs Orks today in mission two as a practice, really hard to get the massacre points I think. Well actually if I would of actually killed the deff dread instead of black knighting it despite 5 rail gun hits in the same turn would of hit the massacre.

I noticed no Night Fighting rules, so now all my bsf will come out and add another kroot or two.

Another huge impact is the fixed 6 turns. If you can play through each game, certain armies actually can do quite well in two out of 3 missions with fixed turns.

Sarigar wrote:Another huge impact is the fixed 6 turns. If you can play through each game, certain armies actually can do quite well in two out of 3 missions with fixed turns.

They had a fixed 6 rounds in all three parts of the tournament last year as well.