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.

Spoletta wrote:
For those that played CA missions, then yes having objectives that influence your list building is a novelty (not 100% true though).
For ITC players, the current secondaries influence list building much much less than the old ITC secondaries.

Would be interested if you could expand on this - because it doesn't seem like that to me.

To my mind in ITC you could try and skew your list so you might only offer up only 3 out of 4 points for certain secondaries. Usually though there were sufficient options that at least for the killing objectives, if your opponent killed most of your list over the course of the game they were probably maxing them out.
And while close games obviously happen, most were not decided by 2-3 points on secondaries. Hold more/kill more (or anything)/the bonus tended to add up.

By contrast in 9th, it seems like you can listbuild into easy traps. Giving an easy Bring it Down/Assassinate is a 15 points for your opponent that is not easily found elsewhere. Abhor the witch seems like an incredibly harsh penalty if you had the temerity to bring 3+ psykers and your opponent decided not to bring any. MSU (or just cheap units in general) was always undermined by ITC's kill more mechanic, which is revived in attrition. And don't bring 3+ psykers. Just don't.

 Elfric wrote:
There is no Ork FW must have that cant be done better in the regular codex. maybe some people just like the aestehtcic of the models, that would be pretty crazy

You must have missed their most recent feth-up with the chinork.

Karol wrote:
People didn''t like leviathan and chaplain dreads more then a bit. The cheap R&H smite bots were also not very fun to play against, specialy when one of them cost less then your single model and had a much better smite with longer range.

The tau suits, before the nerf were unfun to play against too.

Was it the loyalist or csm leviathan that was your problem, or both? There's a big difference between a 4++ and a 5++, especially when they cost the same price.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Elfric wrote:
There is no Ork FW must have that cant be done better in the regular codex. maybe some people just like the aestehtcic of the models, that would be pretty crazy

You must have missed their most recent feth-up with the chinork.

Is it really that good?
I frankly doubt it, time will tell, but it is certainly no eradicator

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
For those that played CA missions, then yes having objectives that influence your list building is a novelty (not 100% true though).
For ITC players, the current secondaries influence list building much much less than the old ITC secondaries.

Would be interested if you could expand on this - because it doesn't seem like that to me.

To my mind in ITC you could try and skew your list so you might only offer up only 3 out of 4 points for certain secondaries. Usually though there were sufficient options that at least for the killing objectives, if your opponent killed most of your list over the course of the game they were probably maxing them out.
And while close games obviously happen, most were not decided by 2-3 points on secondaries. Hold more/kill more (or anything)/the bonus tended to add up.

By contrast in 9th, it seems like you can listbuild into easy traps. Giving an easy Bring it Down/Assassinate is a 15 points for your opponent that is not easily found elsewhere. Abhor the witch seems like an incredibly harsh penalty if you had the temerity to bring 3+ psykers and your opponent decided not to bring any. MSU (or just cheap units in general) was always undermined by ITC's kill more mechanic, which is revived in attrition. And don't bring 3+ psykers. Just don't.

The requirements to full a secondary objective in ITC were much lower compared to the ones in 9th. They mostly avoid the skews. You really need a lot of models on the field to give good points in Thin Theyr Ranks, and you need a lot of vehicle wounds for Bring It Down. Titan slayer requires 3 LoW to be maxed. Assassinate requires 5 chars.
It is much easier to make a list where you don't give max points on any, where in ITC you could count on one hand the factions that didn't automatically give one away.
Also, we have categories. Kill more and Reaper are mutually exclusive, Big Game Hunter and Head Hunter too. You got much more freedom in how you build a list before being seriously impacted by secondaries.
In addition, first turn now tends to be much less lethal and there are only 5 rounds. Compared to the 6 round format, this makes any killing secondary much more risky to be selected, because there will be less games where the opponent ends up tabled.

Anyway, my main take away continues to be that secondaries are a problem, not this unit is overpowered or that we should all ban forgeworld etc.

This could very well be the most "lists win games" period in a while - because there are various lists I can imagine which will easily allow your opponent to max out on secondaries, while their list gives very little, and that's a near impossible mountain to climb.

Admittedly this will likely shake out over time, but it could result in a very unforgiving meta, even amongst relatively casual players.

Agreed the secondaries are problematic as they sit. I still think the ITC ones are better. Wish they would just adopt those.

I'd be curious to see of there are stats from this on how many times the player who went first won the game. My group is still finding that to be too big an advantage in most cases. It's too easy to snowball, and you can do it pretty fast. And even if the points are close at the end of the game, because of when the objectives are typically scored, the player who went first can score their points in the command phase and then use their remaining units to prevent player 2 from scoring. I typically avoid the IGOUGO argument because I've played plenty of IGOUGO style games that didn't have these issues, but in this case, some of the missions really seem to be at least semi-broken in the IGOUGO format.

EDIT:
RE: Anything Forge World being "broken" - My group stopped worrying about that sometime in 6th when GW started making its own units and rules that were just off-the-charts broken. If you're going to claim FW is a potential problem because it's not updated often and the rules are hard to come by - I think that's fair. But it's pretty hard (IMO) to complain about FW being "broken" in the face of some of the things we've seen from GW over the last few editions.

 Elfric wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Sure. New GW is the old GW and that's way FW is still blatantly pay-to-win and will not change.

People like you desperately trying to white knight they resin-bought tournament points is cute. You played the game and parted from your money to get an edge over better skilled players. I am not excusing GW of offering that option, but neither should you delude yourself into why GW does it that way: because suckers will pay the FW premium to toast opponents with the more "pedestrian" plastic models at the local tournament. That's how that symbiotic relationship works.

maybe back in 7th FW was broken but not 8th and certainly not 9th. There is no Ork FW must have that cant be done better in the regular codex. maybe some people just like the aestehtcic of the models, that would be pretty crazy

FW wasn't broken in 7th either, Sunny just doesn't know what they're talking about.

I can think of only 2 FW units in 8th that were OP on their own and not because of rules interactions in GW Codizes.
These were Aetaos'rau'keres and malefic lords. But at the same time you had razorwing flock and brimstones on the GW side. All of these were brought down in CA 2017 if I recall correctly. The Leviathan surely was a good unit for Chaos (especially DG) but it never was OP before the Iron Hands supplement.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Is it really that good?
I frankly doubt it, time will tell, but it is certainly no eradicator

They accidentally made it an AIRCRAFT despite having no minimum speed (so it can still fall back and shoot), while making its weapons no longer suffer from -1 to hit, blast and cost 0 points.

So, for 90 points it is a trukk that has an additional 4d6 S5 AP-2 D3 shots (blast) with FLY, 16" movement and two bombs. And it's a dedicated transport so no blocked slots and no rule of 3. Every weirdboy can have one.

Leviathans in 8th were solid, IH broke them. Contemptor is solid as well. One of the best units for Chaos. But still not broke. I've played many many events and the most common FW units I see are Levi's, and they all fall to thermal cannons. I think some people's opinions of FW is jaded by the fact that they either can't afford it or because they don't know how to deal with the models. I see this at my local store, so I'd assume it's true for other places as well. If you're against something you don't know, as for the book. It's that simple. Anybody with a reasonable amount of skill shouldn't have any issues with dealing with even the most abused FW unit. Save for IH dreads...those are hecka hard to kill. Even with multiple thermal cannons bearing down on it.

A few more GT's this weekend. Vanguard Tactics went Salamanders Successors, Nurgle Soup, Custodes and Harlequins, the Adelaide GT went Orks, Space Wolves, Drukhari and Ultramarines Successors.

Fair to say, this one is looking more like an outlier than an indication of a trend.

 Asmodai wrote:
A few more GT's this weekend. Vanguard Tactics went Salamanders Successors, Nurgle Soup, Custodes and Harlequins, the Adelaide GT went Orks, Space Wolves, Drukhari and Ultramarines Successors.

Fair to say, this one is looking more like an outlier than an indication of a trend.

That is a much nicer spread of factions, glad to see it.

I'm signed up for a GT in the beginning of September. We'll see how that goes.

A few more GT's this weekend. Vanguard Tactics went Salamanders Successors, Nurgle Soup, Custodes and Harlequins, the Adelaide GT went Orks, Space Wolves, Drukhari and Ultramarines Successors.

Fair to say, this one is looking more like an outlier than an indication of a trend.

WOW. Would love to see the lists from the Adelaide GT. Impressive to see Drukhari in there.

Tycho wrote:

A few more GT's this weekend. Vanguard Tactics went Salamanders Successors, Nurgle Soup, Custodes and Harlequins, the Adelaide GT went Orks, Space Wolves, Drukhari and Ultramarines Successors.

Fair to say, this one is looking more like an outlier than an indication of a trend.

WOW. Would love to see the lists from the Adelaide GT. Impressive to see Drukhari in there.

https://www.40kstats.com/adelaidegt

Wayniac wrote:
Oh but soups supposed to be dead right?

Doctrines obviously the problem. You literally don't get doctrines with a space marine army if you ally a non marine army.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Is it really that good?
I frankly doubt it, time will tell, but it is certainly no eradicator

They accidentally made it an AIRCRAFT despite having no minimum speed (so it can still fall back and shoot), while making its weapons no longer suffer from -1 to hit, blast and cost 0 points.

So, for 90 points it is a trukk that has an additional 4d6 S5 AP-2 D3 shots (blast) with FLY, 16" movement and two bombs. And it's a dedicated transport so no blocked slots and no rule of 3. Every weirdboy can have one.

ah yes, missing keywords and additional keywords

FFS gw xD

orkz seem to go to nam in this case

Shocking Results from the vanguard series: https://www.40kstats.com/vanguardseries you won't believe number 11!

Oh wait yes you will, the 11th unit is the first squad of 3 Eradicator squads in the #1 list.

I wonder who is going to be found to be liable when - not if - one of these events turns out to be a COVID hotspot.

 Dysartes wrote:
I wonder who is going to be found to be liable when - not if - one of these events turns out to be a COVID hotspot.

Yeah, the amount of folks signing on for in-person tournies and events is kinda alarming.

Is doing these kind of events over something like tabletop sim out of the question?

TTS isn't great for running events. For me, I prefer in person events because I like the people that attend they're a great group of people. I've done 2 RTT's and one GT in the last month and a half. Everyone was safe, wearing masks, washing hands, using sanitizer, taking temp, etc. To my knowledge, not one person has gotten sick.

I know I sound repetitive at this point, but the secondaries really are problematic. Certain list types (most obviously elite-heavy, low tank - i.e. space marines) don't give up any kill secondaries, while other lists give your opponent a guaranteed 15, and sometimes even 30 points. The internal balance of the secondaries is also wonky, but that's not as critical a problem as the way they skew lists.

Look at the way these tournaments turned out - despite the claim from GW that the intent was to make secondaries hard to score, the average score for a winning game from a top-4 player is about 85 points, which is an even higher percentage of the total points available than we saw in ITC. You almost never saw a perfect score in ITC; multiple games here saw perfect 100 or near-perfect (95+) scores.

The truth is they didn't make secondaries that are hard to score across the board. Instead, they managed to create a set of secondaries that rewards certain archetypes over others, making the outcome of games even more dependent on list-tailoring and reducing game diversity substantially. For example, in the top 11 lists for the three events (for some reason the 4th place list from WA wasn't posted), there are only 3 lists that take any psykers at all, and one of those is just a single shadowseer. That's a clear result of abhor; people gave up psychic support in order to be able to take it for a free 15CP against psychic armies.

ITC kill secondaries weren't perfectly balanced themselves, but the difference was that ITC secondaries were easier to max in general, so the relative cost of giving your opponent an easy 4 points on one was much lower. The new secondaries being poorly balanced means that if you give your opponent an easy maxed secondary, or, god forbid, two, the game is likely over just based on that.

The truth is they didn't make secondaries that are hard to score across the board. Instead, they managed to create a set of secondaries that rewards certain archetypes over others, making the outcome of games even more dependent on list-tailoring and reducing game diversity substantially. For example, in the top 11 lists for the three events (for some reason the 4th place list from WA wasn't posted), there are only 3 lists that take any psykers at all, and one of those is just a single shadowseer. That's a clear result of abhor; people gave up psychic support in order to be able to take it for a free 15CP against psychic armies.

One million percent this. I keep saying it as well, but these missions are going to lead to a lot of armies resembling 3rd ed Rhino Rush style armies, and there's not going to be nearly the variation one would hope for because the missions themselves don't seem to allow for it.

Tycho wrote:

The truth is they didn't make secondaries that are hard to score across the board. Instead, they managed to create a set of secondaries that rewards certain archetypes over others, making the outcome of games even more dependent on list-tailoring and reducing game diversity substantially. For example, in the top 11 lists for the three events (for some reason the 4th place list from WA wasn't posted), there are only 3 lists that take any psykers at all, and one of those is just a single shadowseer. That's a clear result of abhor; people gave up psychic support in order to be able to take it for a free 15CP against psychic armies.

One million percent this. I keep saying it as well, but these missions are going to lead to a lot of armies resembling 3rd ed Rhino Rush style armies, and there's not going to be nearly the variation one would hope for because the missions themselves don't seem to allow for it.

That's allways an issue with so heavy weighted choseable secondaries.

That's allways an issue with so heavy weighted choseable secondaries.

Yes, but IMO it's not just the secondaries. The missions themselves, from how they're laid out, to how they're scored are also contributing to the issues yukishiro1 is pointing out. I think most of the fixes are simple. It's not like it's a "the sky is falling" type of thing, but they do need looked at IMO. In a lot of cases, with the right list, if you go first, it's just a much longer, slower version of the old school "alpha strike".

I am not convinced on the missions themselves either, but I'm less skeptical than I am on the secondaries. To be clear, the rulebook missions are junk; the first-turn advantage is far too great. The GT missions, however, are much better balanced. The decision to only score primary from holding, and to make scoring start-of-turn, definitely does push the game in certain directions. But I'm not yet ready to say that's necessarily a big problem. With balanced secondaries, I think you'd still see a lot of unit and build diversity.

My approach would be to rework the secondaries first, before reconsidering the basic approach of the missions.

I am not convinced on the missions themselves either, but I'm less skeptical than I am on the secondaries. To be clear, the rulebook missions are junk; the first-turn advantage is far too great. The GT missions, however, are much better balanced. The decision to only score primary from holding, and to make scoring start-of-turn, definitely does push the game in certain directions. But I'm not yet ready to say that's necessarily a big problem. With balanced secondaries, I think you'd still see a lot of unit and build diversity.

My approach would be to rework the secondaries first, before reconsidering the basic approach of the missions.

Yeah, agreed. I think if the secondaries get a decent rework, the problems inherent to the missions themselves (particularly the main rule book missions) become much much easier to address.

Vanguard Tactics Grand Series
https://www.40kstats.com/vanguardseries?fbclid=IwAR3b8Om3FCSOkysfWSMP08BSSMGwZGgSwYTkCtciENKEyFWKWsiO0mP4bCk

9 eradicators and 14 aggressors... lol.

 slave.entity wrote:
Vanguard Tactics Grand Series
https://www.40kstats.com/vanguardseries?fbclid=IwAR3b8Om3FCSOkysfWSMP08BSSMGwZGgSwYTkCtciENKEyFWKWsiO0mP4bCk

9 eradicators and 14 aggressors... lol.

If that kind of list becomes popular harlequins are going to be a top army.

One of the biggest gaps from ITC to 9th GT is the lack of any Gangbusters equivalent. We have secondaries for scoring max points against Vehicle lists, and horde lists, but literally nothing for scoring against small Elite units and Bikes. That's definitely going to shape list-building under the current rules. Especially when you can take Elite Bikes (See Custodes and Harlies)

IMO we're in a Bike meta.

Tough, fast, fighty units that aren't tagged Vehicle or Monster, saw minimal points changes generally and no points changes regarding how much the game framework has shifted in their favor. (Small board, LOS blocking cover, need to take and hold objectives for a full turn)