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.

 wuestenfux wrote:

However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.

What? Take as many detachments as you want. Only one GM, only one BC, sure, but there are other HQ choices in the book. If I was running two battalions, I'd put the GM in charage of one with a Librarian for back up, and the BC in charge of the the other- maybe with another Librarian, but maybe a techmarine or champion. Feels fluffier than putting both of the head honchos in one basket.

 wuestenfux wrote:

And how about real space raid for Drukhari?

Unaffected, as Cult/ Kabal/ Coven are still different selectable keywords. In fact, I'm not sure you were ever able to take more than one Kabal, one Cult or one Coven in an RSR. The rules are a little murkier than the rules for Raiding Forces.

PenitentJake wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

However, GK is restricted to just ONE detachment which makes list building rather restrictive.

What? Take as many detachments as you want. Only one GM, only one BC, sure, but there are other HQ choices in the book. If I was running two battalions, I'd put the GM in charage of one with a Librarian for back up, and the BC in charge of the the other- maybe with another Librarian, but maybe a techmarine or champion. Feels fluffier than putting both of the head honchos in one basket.

Or you could run unbound.
Personally I stick to detachments, but as I tend to burn most of my CPs in list construction... ...well it is something to consider.

Actually, that raises a question. If I build an unbound list does everything have to start on the board, as putting things into reserve tends to have a CP cost?

 vict0988 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Without subfaction traits, you can't really get that difference on the battlefield while using the same units. IMO this is why GW has decided to ban multiple subfactions in competitive play. The rules were created for thematic gameplay purposes, not for power. Allowing multiple subfactions allowed the players to concentrate on the power rather than the theme.

Yet it's still all about power. People will just focus on units that maximise subfaction rules and ignore units that don't benefit from it leading to very unthematic looking armies.

If you give free bonuses it a) will create unthematic armies b) break the balance.

But it sells models. Broken balance helps sales.

Except that nobody is going to buy Scouts, nobody is going to buy Salamander Outriders... Perfect imbalance leads to sales. If the meta is Eradicators and each faction has counters for Eradicators then people buy those counters, the meta adjusts, Eradicators stop being meta and the Eradicator counters stop being meta leading to people buying new minis again until people get everything for a faction. All GW has to do to create perfect imbalance is do their best job at making the game balanced, because perfect balance is impossible with all the different stats that are in the game, perfect imbalance does not mean "herpaderp me make Eradicators OP now" or "durr what's playtesting?".

Perfect imbalances on a half-year bases.
Shifting from one local optimum to another one triggers a meta change and forces comp. players to adapt their armies accordingly.
A perfect situation for GW to increase the revenue.

That's isn't half bad honestly.

To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.

Let's not forget the errata nerfs AdMech got.

A 200 point advantage before the game begins quickly turns into a 300 point advantage turn 1, 500 point advantage turn 2 and a tabling turn 3.

I am of the opinion, that it only matters when it comes to mixed subfactions, is when folks proxy models. So long as each detachment within an Army list has a single subfaction, it is no bother. It is when they proxy models for whatever reason, and start by taking subfaction that are clearly painted in a certain aesthetic, then using said detachment for another subfaction is where things get confusing and beardy game play comes into play.

Spoletta wrote:
That's isn't half bad honestly.

To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.

This post didn't age well.

Hecaton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's isn't half bad honestly.

To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.

This post didn't age well.

Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

I do wish GW gave some "approved" ways to soup that suited the lore, such as:

Imperial Knights:
- Questor Mechanicus being able to more seemlessly soup with Ad-Mech. Knight of the Cog should be some kind of buff to individual knights.
- Questor Imperialis being able to seemlessly soup with any other Imperium faction (no Ad-Mech soup).
- Single Freeblade's in a super-heavy auxiliary detachment being able to soup with any Imperium faction.

Chaos Knights:
- As above, except for chaos factions.

Chaos Daemons:
- There should be greater support again for things like Death Guard and Thousand Sons to soup with the daemons of their patron gods.

Imperial Guard:
- There needs to be some kind of exception to allow mixing different regiments. It's incredibly lore friendly, the Imperial Guard do deploy in massed army groups consisting of many regiments. Something like Raiding Forces for DE.
- Option for things like Gue'vesa or Traitor Guard similar to Brood Brothers.
- Option for something like Inquisitorial Storm Troopers for Scions to be used directly with the Inquisition.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

This, Siegler is the man that won with the old Tau codex. He's probably the best 40k player currently.

Well, new rules really hurt all of my 1ksons lists, and not sure we needed the hit. Anyhow, all this is going to do is so we only see meta sub-factions instead of a panoply. I know every list Ill be running will have one cult over and over and over.

Now you can say this is my choice. And it is. But when building to win games ( not WAAC, otherwise id be picking up Tau rail guns) your choices are already anemic with most factions. This just makes it worse.

This Siegler fellow you speak of seems to have been granted almost supernatural power.

I have alerted the Ordo Hereticus of the Inquisition about potential witchery and I am certain that in the not too distant future, the shall be a =][= REDACTED =][=

 Ordana wrote:
Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

There's limits to what player skill can achieve, lol.

 Ordana wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's isn't half bad honestly.

To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.

This post didn't age well.

Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.

Yeah, and it is a gnarly list as well. My YouTube recommendations played a review of it during my painting today, and it essentially was a list of ridiculous synergies to make gigantic Ranger blocks hit on a 2+ with +1 to wound, AP -3, and rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. Dude was knocking out tanks with infantry rifles.

Siegler is a great Warhammer player, arguably the best in the world. Some of that greatness is in play, for sure, but some of it is also that he is fantastic at writing lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, and it is a gnarly list as well. My YouTube recommendations played a review of it during my painting today, and it essentially was a list of ridiculous synergies to make gigantic Ranger blocks hit on a 2+ with +1 to wound, AP -3, and rerolling 1s to hit and to wound. Dude was knocking out tanks with infantry rifles.

This is exactly how I play my Scions. 18 squads of Scions, each 10 models strong. Have a Tempestor Prime issue FRFSRF, then have him with Laurels of Command to stack EPS for full RR against vehicles and monsters. It's quite deadly.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That's isn't half bad honestly.

To reach this perfect imbalance they needed to reach a good enough balance first. Not perfect, but good enough that changing something has a cascade effect on what is good and what is not (for top level of competition).

The most oppressive list of 9th edition (Admech) suffered a 10% point nerf and is now not even a blip on the competitive radar.

200 points. 10%. That's all it took.

In previous editions there were armies that could fight 2 other armies at the same time and still win.

Sure, now if you want to play at top levels and always squeeze that few % of win rate then you have to pay for the privilege.

Considering though that competitive players are a very minimal part of the players, I don't see an issue with that.

This post didn't age well.

Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.

I love it when people totally miss the point. Siegler was 1st place with his Skitari list. The other 6-0/5-0-1 list for the tournament were 3 Custodes, 4 Drukari, 3 Tyranid (Force of the Hivemind), an Orks, and a Grey Knights list. The next best placement for a AdMech list was 68th place out of 768 players with only 2 AM list going 5-1. So it wasn't the list or the faction, it was the player running it that mattered.

Jarms48 wrote:
I do wish GW gave some "approved" ways to soup that suited the lore, such as:

Imperial Knights:
- Questor Mechanicus being able to more seemlessly soup with Ad-Mech. Knight of the Cog should be some kind of buff to individual knights.
- Questor Imperialis being able to seemlessly soup with any other Imperium faction (no Ad-Mech soup).
- Single Freeblade's in a super-heavy auxiliary detachment being able to soup with any Imperium faction.

Chaos Knights:
- As above, except for chaos factions.

Chaos Daemons:
- There should be greater support again for things like Death Guard and Thousand Sons to soup with the daemons of their patron gods.

Imperial Guard:
- There needs to be some kind of exception to allow mixing different regiments. It's incredibly lore friendly, the Imperial Guard do deploy in massed army groups consisting of many regiments. Something like Raiding Forces for DE.
- Option for things like Gue'vesa or Traitor Guard similar to Brood Brothers.
- Option for something like Inquisitorial Storm Troopers for Scions to be used directly with the Inquisition.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

This, Siegler is the man that won with the old Tau codex. He's probably the best 40k player currently.

Ok so I'm slow here. Do I read that right as no Cadian detachment in same army as Catachan or other? Boring if so.

 alextroy wrote:
I love it when people totally miss the point. Siegler was 1st place with his Skitari list. The other 6-0/5-0-1 list for the tournament were 3 Custodes, 4 Drukari, 3 Tyranid (Force of the Hivemind), an Orks, and a Grey Knights list. The next best placement for a AdMech list was 68th place out of 768 players with only 2 AM list going 5-1. So it wasn't the list or the faction, it was the player running it that mattered.

Was anyone else running his list?

 RegularGuy wrote:


Ok so I'm slow here. Do I read that right as no Cadian detachment in same army as Catachan or other? Boring if so.

Mostly, and yeah. But moreso, No Cult of the Mortal Wounds Thousand Sons with Cult of the Witchfire Storms Thousand Sons. (I'm making up the cults, obviously) - as long as the models are distinct the problem is rarely Cadians and Catachans having to share a latrine, the issue is This TKS gets this special rule and that TKS gets that Special rule - but nobody can tell them apart.

I'd like to see Orks and Guard both get a similar subfaction system where they can take all their "tribal" models but their subfaction is based on their Warlord. For Orks it would still be Clans - if your WL is Goff this happens to these units, if he's Evil Sunz, that happens to those units. For Guard it can be some sort of War College subfaction. If your warlord is a Tank Commander this happens, if he's an Imperial Officer that happens.

Hecaton wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I love it when people totally miss the point. Siegler was 1st place with his Skitari list. The other 6-0/5-0-1 list for the tournament were 3 Custodes, 4 Drukari, 3 Tyranid (Force of the Hivemind), an Orks, and a Grey Knights list. The next best placement for a AdMech list was 68th place out of 768 players with only 2 AM list going 5-1. So it wasn't the list or the faction, it was the player running it that mattered.

Was anyone else running his list?

It's the standard AM competitive list with minor variations.

tneva82 wrote:

His faction was admech...so you are wrong as usual.

A word of advice friend, if English isn't your first language and as such you lack the ability to pick up on the subtleties of conversations in English you should probably be a little more careful when condescending to others while speaking the language. In the future you might avoid embarrassing situations like this where you attempt to gotcha someone only to make yourself look foolish and socially awkward.

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Admech didn't win LVO.
Siegler did, the man is on a whole different level.

There's limits to what player skill can achieve, lol.

Yeah, which is why Siegler went AdMech instead of old Tau...

Table wrote:
Well, new rules really hurt all of my 1ksons lists, and not sure we needed the hit. Anyhow, all this is going to do is so we only see meta sub-factions instead of a panoply. I know every list Ill be running will have one cult over and over and over.

Now you can say this is my choice. And it is. But when building to win games ( not WAAC, otherwise id be picking up Tau rail guns) your choices are already anemic with most factions. This just makes it worse.

yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.

All that massive spread of possiblities, totally not like 95% ran the same 2 cults right?

 Ordana wrote:
yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.

Seems weird that GW would write an army that can't use 8/9ths of its options in each game.

Almost as if they attempted to use a one-size-fits-all approach to fix a problem more prevalent in more specific armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
yes, instead of multiple meta sub-factions where you just pick the best of everything you now have to pick 1 meta sub-faction. How terrible.

Seems weird that GW would write an army that can't use 8/9ths of its options in each game.

Almost as if they attempted to use a one-size-fits-all approach to fix a problem more prevalent in more specific armies.

its almost as if the entire army building process is about making choices...

First they banned faction souping within detachments, then they strongly discourages faction souping outside of detachments (via via you only get this if mono-faction buffs) and now they are banning sub-faction souping.
Its almost as if this is a clear design line that GW has taken. Outside of a very small group of mostly lore based factions GW wants your army to be 1 force. Not a mix where you pick a little bit of what is best from everything.

Which is honestly just returning to how the game and armies always used to be. It also fits with how GW sells and markets the various armies as well.

You rarely see them showing off a Space Marine force that is anything but one single faction at a time; same for most other armies.


Again for the most part most armies are 1 faction and of that faction 1 subgrouping if there are any subgroups present (or if they've a defined enough visual identity to be told apart from each other).

 Overread wrote:
Which is honestly just returning to how the game and armies always used to be. It also fits with how GW sells and markets the various armies as well.

You rarely see them showing off a Space Marine force that is anything but one single faction at a time; same for most other armies.


Again for the most part most armies are 1 faction and of that faction 1 subgrouping if there are any subgroups present (or if they've a defined enough visual identity to be told apart from each other).

Just a heads up:

The video trailer that introduced this edition should marines, sisters and guard fighting against crons.

Vigilus Alone contains rules for War of Faith armies, which combine Sisters, Marines and Guard; White Dwarf published rules for Torchbearer Fleets which blend Custodes, Primaris and Admech.

Eldar soup Light, Dark or even a blend of the two is all the rage.

So there certainly are approved soup formats, but rarely those which allow you to mix multiple subfactions of a single type (ie. feel free to take a coven a cult and a kabal, but not a cabal and two cults).

In fact it will be interesting to see whether Troupes of Harlequins continue to exist, or whether a Harlequin is just a Harlequin again when the new dex comes. Or if a Corsair is just going to be a Corsair (I don't know them well enough to know if they had subfactions to begin with- certainly the Ynarri did not).

Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but can I take a Battalion of <REGIMENT> and a patrol of <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> still?

 PaddyMick wrote:
Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but can I take a Battalion of <REGIMENT> and a patrol of <TEMPESTUS REGIMENT> still?

Yes.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Which is honestly just returning to how the game and armies always used to be. It also fits with how GW sells and markets the various armies as well.

You rarely see them showing off a Space Marine force that is anything but one single faction at a time; same for most other armies.


Again for the most part most armies are 1 faction and of that faction 1 subgrouping if there are any subgroups present (or if they've a defined enough visual identity to be told apart from each other).

Just a heads up:

The video trailer that introduced this edition should marines, sisters and guard fighting against crons.

Vigilus Alone contains rules for War of Faith armies, which combine Sisters, Marines and Guard; White Dwarf published rules for Torchbearer Fleets which blend Custodes, Primaris and Admech.

Eldar soup Light, Dark or even a blend of the two is all the rage.

So there certainly are approved soup formats, but rarely those which allow you to mix multiple subfactions of a single type (ie. feel free to take a coven a cult and a kabal, but not a cabal and two cults).

In fact it will be interesting to see whether Troupes of Harlequins continue to exist, or whether a Harlequin is just a Harlequin again when the new dex comes. Or if a Corsair is just going to be a Corsair (I don't know them well enough to know if they had subfactions to begin with- certainly the Ynarri did not).

Very true, but often as not when GW shows two or three armies working together they often stand apart visually. Each one has its own paint scheme they aren't on single army sharing the same paint scheme or such. It really is more a case of showing "this is 3 armies together as a joint force" rather than "this is one army comprised of multiple different subgroupings".

Of course with Yinnari being by default DE and CE together it kind of breaks that ,but even then a lot of the time the two forces have distinct paintwork.

And yep its never done with subfactions.

I think its just part of GW reinforcing the visual style and design of armies which is part of army design and balance. It's part of thinking about what armies should look like on the tabletop; how they'd like them to look and how they then go through and market them and such.