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.

I feel if you can't beat them, join them. So I now have an Eldar 1850 list. The rules of ITC are the best there is. If we didn't have them players would (and have) take advantage of the holes in the rules and make OP armies. I still feel that if you don't like an ITC ruling, then lobby to get it changed. Personally, I would rather spend my time playing the people that inhabit my FLGs. BTW, we really do have a great group of people at our FLG. So as I write this I have to say, lets be grateful we are not discussing how to find good opponents. (cue patriotic music and the American Flag waving in the warm California breeze). Let's play the game and enjoy the good times.

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
I feel if you can't beat them, join them. So I now have an Eldar 1850 list.

That's exactly what I did, 8 or 9 years ago. Kept losing to them, so I bought the codex (ah, Phil Kelly ), bought an army, and learned how to deal with them.

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
The rules of ITC are the best there is. If we didn't have them players would (and have) take advantage of the holes in the rules and make OP armies. I still feel that if you don't like an ITC ruling, then lobby to get it changed. Personally, I would rather spend my time playing the people that inhabit my FLGs. BTW, we really do have a great group of people at our FLG. So as I write this I have to say, lets be grateful we are not discussing how to find good opponents. (cue patriotic music and the American Flag waving in the warm California breeze). Let's play the game and enjoy the good times.

Nice post Mr. B. I agree on all points.

I'd like to keep On Topic, in that this isn't an ITC critique, but what sort of things shall members of the 40k community do when the Poop-Storm of OMGWFTBBQ happens when Sisters of Battle get the next "broken" Super Heavy Walker / gargantuan creature ... Can someone insert a Barbie doll jpeg? I've run into Mattel's CopyRight wall.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
I feel if you can't beat them, join them. So I now have an Eldar 1850 list.

That's exactly what I did, 8 or 9 years ago. Kept losing to them, so I bought the codex (ah, Phil Kelly ), bought an army, and learned how to deal with them.

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
The rules of ITC are the best there is. If we didn't have them players would (and have) take advantage of the holes in the rules and make OP armies. I still feel that if you don't like an ITC ruling, then lobby to get it changed. Personally, I would rather spend my time playing the people that inhabit my FLGs. BTW, we really do have a great group of people at our FLG. So as I write this I have to say, lets be grateful we are not discussing how to find good opponents. (cue patriotic music and the American Flag waving in the warm California breeze). Let's play the game and enjoy the good times.

Nice post Mr. B. I agree on all points.

I'd like to keep On Topic, in that this isn't an ITC critique, but what sort of things shall members of the 40k community do when the Poop-Storm of OMGWFTBBQ happens when Sisters of Battle get the next "broken" Super Heavy Walker / gargantuan creature ... Can someone insert a Barbie doll jpeg? I've run into Mattel's CopyRight wall.

I think you mean: when Sisters get a formation in which dominions get unlimited uses of acts of faith and automatically pass the leadership test. Life gets hard when you have 6 squads of sisters with 4 melta guns each that receive Ignore Cover every turn. Likely no? But possible given how the sales of old Sisters minis would spike as everybody rushes to get guaranteed, cheap ignore cover into their imperial lists. I'm still allowed to dream, right?

So this is a thread about not calling a spade a spade until after people buy the spade because it might scare then off. It is not hard to know bad rule be them over powered or underpowered, when it such a big difference between power level exist.

Lots of codices are broken. 40k is a usually fun but super imbalanced game. Deathstars and gimmick abuse rule the top tables. So what. Determining brokenness by who wins GTs is super dumb. The experience of the average player facing something is far more important.

MVBrandt wrote:
Lots of codices are broken.

See, even from you, Mr. Brandt, I think we can expect more exact language than 'broken'.

How about more like, "Dark Eldar, orks, Sisters, Chaos Marines & Blood Angels are books that perform poorly in tournaments.
But 'Crons, Eldar, KDK and SM are the strong books "?

MVBrandt wrote:
40k is a usually fun but super imbalanced game. Deathstars and gimmick abuse rule the top tables. So what. Determining brokenness by who wins GTs is super dumb.

You are correct. That's the joke title. But I'm going to mince your statement, a bit, because if any of these guys are at a GT, we are likely to see them at the top, regardless (almost) of the army they wield, the Brett Ps, the Allans, the Nick Ns, Steve Sisk. You (respectfully), Adam Gati & jy2, etc..

And you've made my point. Brokenness is *not* determined by who wins GTs. "Who wins GTs" just points out who the best players are.

Brokenness is not determined by reading a book, listening to other guys post their opinions and discussing h8 at the store counter and then spewing more on the forums.

Brokenness is determined by data. How much data? I dunno, maybe 2 months of RTT from around the country?

MVBrandt wrote:
The experience of the average player facing something is far more important.

And I absolutely agree with this. jy2 provided us with the data that does show eldar dominating the mid field in wins (by player, not just by volume, I found that chart somewhere).

And with that data, the 40k community can now decide if Scatbikes should be limited or if WKs need banning, etc. But that's not this thread.

None of these address my point: When the next book drops and the Chicken Littles start up with bashing the new Sisters or Dark Eldar (DashofPepper brought them a lot of hate back in 5e, though a lot of it was his Sun-shiny personality) or whichever army gets the new (overpowered, broken) book, I think it would be good, for guys like you, with your large presence and cred (NOVA and such) and other 40k players to get the Chicken Littles to post batreps and data and *multiple* experience references, before calling for nerfs and bans.

I plan to do like I did last time: I had a thread looking at how well D weps did more damage with the Eldar book's units. WK before and after comparisons, and all that. I think you posted once or twice.

When the Chicken Littles start up, I'm hoping I can count your support to bring Common Sense to the vitriol of the fools aren't patient enough to ...

Wait and See.

I mean, I get where you're coming from. X player isn't going to be happy when his army gets tourney-nerfed before he gets a chance to play, and it's probably poor for the game overall.

But, people who have been playing for a while and/or have a very good understanding of the game don't always need months of data. It's easy to look at the WK and realize it's insanely undercosted. You didn't need 2 months of results to know that allowing multiples will create some unbalanced crap.

Some stuff needs the time, I agree. I was honestly not sure if squads of Stormsurges were too strong or not. I still don't know if the full Combined Fire is overpowered. I think ITC went a bit overboard on Tau, but that doesn't mean that blatantly OP stuff should get table time before it gets balanced. It needs a bit more of a case-by-case basis.

Requizen wrote:
I mean, I get where you're coming from. X player isn't going to be happy when his army gets tourney-nerfed before he gets a chance to play, and it's probably poor for the game overall.

But, people who have been playing for a while and/or have a very good understanding of the game don't always need months of data. It's easy to look at the WK and realize it's insanely undercosted. You didn't need 2 months of results to know that allowing multiples will create some unbalanced crap.

Some stuff needs the time, I agree. I was honestly not sure if squads of Stormsurges were too strong or not. I still don't know if the full Combined Fire is overpowered. I think ITC went a bit overboard on Tau, but that doesn't mean that blatantly OP stuff should get table time before it gets balanced. It needs a bit more of a case-by-case basis.

Nobody is saying we need to wait on the overtly and obviously OP. Most of us are saying things like the Tau nerfs you mentioned, deserved the chance to be played out before voting on it.

And I agree with that. I guess we'll just have to see what happens with the next big release.